Jump to content

SB Pro PE 4.0 - Discussion thread


Rotareneg

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

19 minutes ago, TankHunter said:

Are each of their grid squares the same size as ours? Those cooling towers seem awfully big for a 1k x 1k grid square.

AW maps are 1,2x1,2- 1,4x1,4 kilometers in size.  Standard WoT map is 1 square kilometer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

 

Well We (the SB community) have been ambushing for some time now in user made "Urban" missions, so I don't really know what your talking about. Maybe joining us here for TGIF or some of the campaigns would open your eyes.then again maybe Aw is the sim best suited to your likes, and dislikes.

No need to be insulting, bro. I am looking forward to the new SB like everyone else. I'm not talking about ambushes from hills or "forest" areas. I am talking about village/town/city ambushes where you fight in an urban, built-up environment. They are giving us the Merkava, I would think that would be an appropriate environment for much of the fighting it sees. They even installed urban packages on many MBTs for that very reason. Since there isn't anything like urban construction in SB at the moment, not sure exactly how you are fighting "urban" missions, unless you are simulating within a simulator....LOL. And thanks for the invite, but I don't have Team Speak or a microphone-headset. Plus my days of taking orders are long over. So I wouldn't fit in very well in online play. You know "No Club...Lone Wolf", like the old hot rod plaques used to read. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, StKpPzBrig18 said:

will never forget the first ride with friends in Operation Flashpoint as Tank Squad................ amazing had driver gunner and commander and talk with the other tanks.......... when you are not alone it is an outstanding journey every time you fight as an team    the grafik was not the point it was the teamwork what flashes

Ditto...I had that one too. If they could even put those graphics into SB, I would be as happy as a clam. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Deputy276 said:

No need to be insulting, bro. I am looking forward to the new SB like everyone else. I'm not talking about ambushes from hills or "forest" areas. I am talking about village/town/city ambushes where you fight in an urban, built-up environment. They are giving us the Merkava, I would think that would be an appropriate environment for much of the fighting it sees. They even installed urban packages on many MBTs for that very reason. Since there isn't anything like urban construction in SB at the moment, not sure exactly how you are fighting "urban" missions, unless you are simulating within a simulator....LOL. And thanks for the invite, but I don't have Team Speak or a microphone-headset. Plus my days of taking orders are long over. So I wouldn't fit in very well in online play. You know "No Club...Lone Wolf", like the old hot rod plaques used to read. ;) 

And I was not trying to be insulting, sry if it came off that way. Yes we ambush from towns and villages, why just last TGIF we had a large fight from a buildup area. Maybe the term "Urban" and your meaning is different from most being a "Lone wolf"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Deputy276 said:

No need to be insulting, bro. I am looking forward to the new SB like everyone else. I'm not talking about ambushes from hills or "forest" areas. I am talking about village/town/city ambushes where you fight in an urban, built-up environment. They are giving us the Merkava, I would think that would be an appropriate environment for much of the fighting it sees. They even installed urban packages on many MBTs for that very reason. Since there isn't anything like urban construction in SB at the moment, not sure exactly how you are fighting "urban" missions, unless you are simulating within a simulator....

Urban mission, like I believe you are thinking of, are better played with VBS or even ArmA, the main arm there is the Infantry, tanks could only support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deputy276 i´m a young kid thinking about your day of birth with my 53 years, but in getting real feeling as an Infanterie in Urban Terrain is the only way to get into the OPF, Arma Series Arma 3 with never seen effects at night. If you are kneeing on a hill and look to that fighting and hear the sound of weapons and explosions you feel like looking into the hell.

Running as Inf on an IFV and drive into an ambush the ramp opens and the sound of incoming bullets and rockets when you try to reach the next liitle position for cover is amazing

 

can´t explain that feeling in my poor english/german

 

The tank next to you were you seek for cover explode and the flames blind your nightvision, everybody is in panik and for a moment when the first mortar shells hit the ground you think it´s all over

in that chaos is suddenly another sound getting louder and louder you see tracers from the treeline next to the town, there comes the cas right in time rockets und heavy maschine guns hold down your enemys and you have a few seconds to find solid cover, search for wounded comrades, regroup and organize your counterattack, the mortars don´t shoot anymore because their masters are death

 

that´s when you decide to grab a smoke and get a lite

 

Now you know why i get back every time from SB and DCS to Arma 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Grenny said:

Have you seen something as detailed as described, but rendered over 6-18 km on a 20x20km map?

There are engine that can do this, but beyond what SB can do...while keeping the requirement of backward compatibility.(in important requirement BTW)

Also, the map need to be easily customer made and converted. There is no team of graphic designers that engineer the map to look detailed...The Idea is to have some SSgt prepare the map for the next exercise.

 

The guy from armoued warefare keep the mapsize to something like 4x4 km  for a reason...most GPU/CPU would not handle it otherwise

Except...I am not asking for a city that large or even a city like Los Angeles or Moscow. City fighting in a PART of one of those cities wouldn't be all that difficult to achieve. You keep talking grand scale. Why not shrink it down to the area you actually are fighting in? All that extra terrain is not necessary if the battle is about fighting in an urban environment. I'm sure Israeli commanders don't lay out a map of all of Israel to plan tactical strategies within a small town. Is SB that locked into battles like Desert Storm or NATO vs Warsaw Pact that they can't display a small, local conflict that includes armored vehicles?  I would think the countries using this sim would be clamoring for just such a scenario(s). Larger map size is already being worked on for AW. And PvP play uses a much larger map than PvE. Plus you aren't DISPLAYING a whole gigantic map while you are playing. The graphics are adjustable to limit the draw distance for different graphics cards. Your eyes can't actually SEE 6-18km, even in real life. So you don't have to worry about DISPLAYING it in the scenario. 

To the gentleman who said he was content to use graphics from back ion the 80s. Most folks aren't. Not when they are paying this much for a program that is supposed to represent modern armored combat. And graphic quality doesn't have to be dramatically improved to display an urban environment. Heck, a guy mentioned Operation Flashpoint. That is an OLD program and it's graphics are far better than what is in SB. I'm not asking for eye candy like in AW or WoT. I am just asking for something that should be available in the 21st century. I understand that some countries that use SB are on computers that are "toasters", to use a popular description. But even toasters can display Operation Flashpoint. I remember sitting up in an attic of a 2-story house in OF with a box full of RPGs picking off enemy tanks as they entered the city. Great fun. Heck, I'm not asking for THAT level of detail in SB. Just HAVE the houses so we can simulate urban conflicts. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, dejawolf said:

 

the main problem with SB is that it is a legacy engine built for speed, not expandability. as such, changing what seems like simple things can take years, since you pretty much have to carefully go through and completely rewrite large sections of code that is more than 500 000 lines long, and then make sure that the thousands of things that can break doesn't. 

making something like armored warfare is dead easy. anyone can do it. pick your off-the-shelf engine, buy some off the shelf trees and buildings, add tanks, and off you go. 
AW is based off Cryengine, and as such, there are certain limitations to what you can do, since most of the code is not available to 3rd parties.

doing SB in cryengine would be impossible. 

Cryengine was developed and perfected for about 10 years, before it was released in 2004. and then it was further refined for another 10. 

that's about 20 years where a closely knit group of programmers have worked to perfect it.  

If I'm not mistaken, SB has a lot of years under it's belt too. Again, I am NOT asking for the graphic quality of AW. But if SB can't actually simulate urban combat, at LEAST at the level that Operation Flashpoint had, then maybe it's time to open up that wallet and spend some dinero for an upgrade to the SB engine. Heck, maybe even buy the OF engine! God, it's OLD and it is better than SB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Deputy276

 

Check the download section.

There are some incredibly detailed user made city maps some of the German community guys spent considerable amounts of time making. They have little details like street signs traffic lights There's even some graffiti on some of the buildings.

 If that's what your looking for.

Then all you have to do is populate it with civilian car trucks Snake containers and even civilians roaming around

And the fact that will be able to add sound files in the update you could create some very atmospheric setting.

As for Ambushes an the like I have created such scenarios it pretty easy to do in the mission editor.

I have played some very intense Urban fighting scenarios in SB ,i have also played WOT WT and AW

Yes there fun but totally unrealistic.

   

Edited by Marko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Ssnake said:

 

We need to differentiate between terrain engine and terrain content. In addition, there are factors like sheer manpower, and total object count that must be considered. Now,

  1. the terrain engine is capable of doing more with the ground itself than what we could show so far, mostly because we only have legacy maps based on DTED2 or DTED3 low resolution source data. Getting real life data can be prohibitively expensive, except for low-res stuff which is available for free at least from a number of selected sources.
  2. However, from what you're writing in your feedback, it seems like you aren't actually interested much in high resolution ground profiles but rather a more varied and detailed landscape that is simply filled with more objects. So, it's terrain content we're talking about. There are two aspects at play, a) the variety of map objects in the object library (and the ability to generate maps that are filled to the brim with all these objects, even if the object library had a million different buildings and street furniture), and b) the total object count that the simulation must handle at any given point. The size of the object library is a function of manpower and therefore a function of money. Every building, every tree, every stone and boulder in SB Pro that you can see is an object that an artist must build, and that costs money. Even if the pay per object isn't very high compared to the amount of time that must be spent building it, one would want really a lot of them to reach the level of detail as demonstrated by your sample video, and a sufficiently large number multiplied with a small sum can still make a big chunk of money that must be spent. And then you actually need to build maps with all these objects inside. Again, that's a function of manpower, and therefore one of money. The sad reality is, the companies behind WoT or AW have a vastly higher number of artists and level designers that they can throw at building much, much smaller sizes of terrain. These small sizes of terrain look much better because they are vastly more expensive to build. But since these games have a vast number of players and they make their money through in-game purchases they can afford this huge number of staff. We can't, and there's just no way that we ever could.
  3. The sheer object count can also become an issue. While there are ways to handle this to a certain extent, keep in mind that our maps are vastly larger than what you can see in AW or WoT, simply because realistic tactics require realistic spaces, and what these games do is that they shrink the spaces dramatically. Makes for better entertainment (=more action) and cheaper content (smaller levels = less money to invest building them). We can't afford these compromises

 

 

Some of that will still get addressed before release. You all want to get informed as early as possible - and when we do we get criticized for things that are still visibly in beta stage. I realize that we cannot please everyone, particularly not all of the time, and to that extent I refuse to get worked up about such comments. but still it is a kind of a "damed if you do, damned if you don't" kind of dilemma.

 

 

 

Your focus is on "realism of looks". We emphasize "realism of procedures" and "realism of results". So maybe we're simply talking past each other. "Looks" is an area where we simply can't compete for the economical reasons listed above. More money buys better-looking virtual environments, it's quite simple actually. So we concentrate on the other two areas of the realism part, and that's where everybody else fails massively. I see no realism in Armored Warfare - at least not the kind that matters to me. Most engagements are taking place within a few hundred meters of range, there's no infantry involved as far as I can see, no helicopters, no engineers, just tanks blasting at other tanks, and it seems with a hit-point based damage system.

 

You could just as well criticize THEM for having tons of money to spend on pretty artwork but failing to invest it where it would actually matter if they were working on a true combined arms simulation. But the reality is, they don't. They are working on a tank game, and we don't. And that's all there is to be said about it, really. If you don't like it, maybe SB Pro isn't made for you.

Jut a few things...

Everyone is quickly grabbing the ball and running in the WRONG direction. I KNOW you aren't gonna be able to build SB into AW or WOT. I probably never should have put that video up because I pretty much knew everyone would jump on the eye candy and miss the point. I asked for urban combat in a city. NOT a ton of eye candy. I would think the countries that use SB would also be asking for something like that. I mean that is where most of the armored combat is taking place nowadays. Not grand battles over large maps, but local uprisings. Things like Bosnia, or what is on-going in Israel. How can you have realism of procedures when even PART of a city/town/village can't be built. How can a tanker train for urban combat in a gigantic open field? I understand about releasing info early on and how people can go off "half-cocked". If you have plans to include the ability to have at least some kind of modern, urban combat, excellent. That would be great. Heck, I am not much at building scenarios, but if the options are there to do it, I will make a stab at it.

Thing is, what I am asking for has already been done a LONG time ago with Operation Flashpoint. And it didn't require a super computer or a $900 graphics card to run it. By modern standards, they WERE using "toasters" to run OF. And they worked quite well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Vikingo said:

Talking about realism or fancy graphics I go 100% for realism. I play simulators since "Spitfire" in Commodore 64. Have a blast with "Gunship 2000" in Amiga 500. All the sims of PC times that time and money let my try all these last years. Have my best memories playing with friends "Operation Flashpoint" since day 0 (not a true tank sim but with MODs you can have a nice (fun) experience) and they were the first ones to introduce many new and original things never seen before. "ARMA 3" is the best for infantry and I still miss the 3D tank interiors of the times of OF (they downgrade even more the sim part on that) I played "Armored Warfare" for a few days but is an Arcade. Looks good, yes but I never have the "fear" sensation I have with "Steel Beast Pro". Here in my room with lights turn off and just my red led light for see the keyboard and in a few seconds I feel inside the tank. And that is the thing I want of a SIMULATOR. And now that 4.0 will add more content and things I only dreamed in the past I can't be more happy and excited. Graphics and sounds are important but if you ONLY get that after a few hours the ride ends. At least for me is that way. Maybe I learn in the past to fill the empty places in sims with my imagination but I don't regret that. I feel happy to see the advances since 8-bits and Steel Beast 4.0 64-bits will be a dream came true. Bet on that. (sorry for the "english")

Your English is fine, but your understanding of my point is a bit "off". I wasn't advocating AW graphics. I was asking for an "urban-city/town/village type of combat. I never should have posted the video. I should have know there would be a bunch of wrong-way Corrigans that jumped on graphic quality over my point. Wouldn't you like the graphics of Operation Flashpoint in SB? I sure would! ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see from the posts here trying to help explain the options for urban fighting have little effect on your perspective. We also see that pictures that demo the fact that urban fighting is, and does take place. I also see that you have not the capability, or maybe most importantly, the desire to comprehend the facts, but are stuck on issues that have been explained (numerous times) to you. I can safely conclude that you should remain on a hit point, fancy eye candy type of game. SB is not for you and will lead to years of disappointment and let downs, I would suggest in all honestly, WOT.

This is not meant to be degrading, or hateful, just trying to steer you to a GAME that you will be happy with, because we all want you to be happy right?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

 

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.

Again...it was NOT about the "looks" but the actual location that I was trying to convey. Urban combat. I'm STILL trying to figure out how Operation Flashpoint was able to give excellent immerson with their old graphics, yet SB can't. Weird! Even weirder that their "priority" customers wouldn't ask for more urban combat abilities and less open fields. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Deputy276 said:

Your English is fine, but your understanding of my point is a bit "off". I wasn't advocating AW graphics. I was asking for an "urban-city/town/village type of combat. I never should have posted the video. I should have know there would be a bunch of wrong-way Corrigans that jumped on graphic quality over my point. Wouldn't you like the graphics of Operation Flashpoint in SB? I sure would! ;) 

 

One, I have posted pictures showing urban combat.

Two, you keep bringing up graphics quality, even in this quote.

 

Steel Beasts Pro has both a map editor and a scenario editor. One has the ability to populate the map with as many buildings as one would like, in as small or large (up to 50km x 50km) as one would like.

I do believe most would agree with me when I say you are guarding the wrong goal while saying people are 'wrong-way Corrigans.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Azure Lion said:

 

 

One, I have posted pictures showing urban combat.

Two, you keep bringing up graphics quality, even in this quote.

 

Steel Beasts Pro has both a map editor and a scenario editor. One has the ability to populate the map with as many buildings as one would like, in as small or large (up to 50km x 50km) as one would like.

I do believe most would agree with me when I say you are guarding the wrong goal while saying people are 'wrong-way Corrigans.'

Well WOULDN'T you like the graphics quality of OF in SB? I sure would. And it was available a long time ago. I am not much with map editing/building. To me, that's an art unto itself. I buy a combat program to fight, not build maps. ;)   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deputy276 said:

Well WOULDN'T you like the graphics quality of OF in SB? I sure would. And it was available a long time ago. I am not much with map editing/building. To me, that's an art unto itself. I buy a combat program to fight, not build maps. ;)   

WOT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Deputy - once the new map editor is out I'm sure there will be more populated areas to come.

 

I'm holding off with Basra until the new editor is out - but I'd say you can already do an overwhelming setting in terms of urban landscape & warfare:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

What specifically did OFP do that SB cannot, in terms of urban fighting? I played OFP religiously and I recall that trying to move in building was pretty poor.

 

My only gripe with urban fighting in SB is that urban centers are so clean. No rubble or battle damage to be seen.

 

I haven't played OFP but perhaps it's as Apocalypse 31 is saying more rubble and small objects to dirty up the urban environments would bring everybody to a happy medium.

As far as the actual fighting, we don't really know what has changed in 4.0 other than the devs and beta testers. Might be wise to put off the discussion until after 4.0 releases ?

That being said I vote we release it today ! I got nothing to do other than housework :)

 

 

Link to comment
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...