Suggestion for graphics of SB Pro 4.1

[mpdugas]

https://gaming.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpvNCECzQ9s

 

From one of the recent developments of a flight simulation that began in 2006.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd-DNkehRlg

 

for what realistic weather effects can be like, also from a flight simulator which began first in 1998.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_8s1FDUYKA

 

Combined arms assault from another flight simulator, which started in 2009, showing ground graphics effects.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4YBxGDSg5o

 

Steel Beasts has been around since 2000, so these are all relative contemporaries.

 

 

[Apocalypse 31]

oh boy....

[Kev2go]

4 hours ago, mpdugas said:

https://gaming.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpvNCECzQ9s

 

From one of the recent developments of a flight simulation that began in 2006.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd-DNkehRlg

 

for what realistic weather effects can be like, also from a flight simulator which began first in 1998.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_8s1FDUYKA

 

Combined arms assault from another flight simulator, which started in 2009, showing ground graphics effects.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4YBxGDSg5o

 

Steel Beasts has been around since 2000, so these are all relative contemporaries.

 

 

 

well graphics updates are planned for 4.0. when released they will start with updated 3d models for Tanks, and then at a later point in time, come out with updated terrain. So what you just described  & compared to, will more or less happen with Steel Beasts v4.0 and onwards.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Kev2go

[Grenny]

...and there will be weather effects.

But as always in the last 12years fro my experince with the game: given the choice between performance and looks...esim chooses performance.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Grenny

[Zaphod]

Wth? 4.0 isn't out yet and there's a 4.1? 

[Rotareneg]

I agree, I'm disappointed SB doesn't look like this:

 

 

 

If some game can have graphics like that, why doesn't an actual simulation like SB look at least as good?!?

 

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2016 by Rotareneg

[AlphaOneSix]

Here is where I set the bar:  Moon phases!

 

[Gibsonm]

7 minutes ago, Rotareneg said:

I agree, I'm disappointed SB doesn't look like this:

 

If some game can have graphics like that, why doesn't an actual simulation like SB look at least as good?!?

 

 

Sorry I can't see any of the graphics on this defence system, but fundamentally Training Outcomes drive Sim development.

 

If its a good simulation of the weapon effects, weapon capabilities, crew drills, etc. then the leaves on the trees, or mud on road wheels, (or whatever) doesn't matter. Nice to have but not need to have.

 

Especially if that requires constraining the manoeuvre space.

 

I'd be happy to go with solid brown or green blocks for impassable terrain as far as going or LOS, but glad that eSim have provided the fidelity that they have.

 

Having a large fleet of training machines (we have some 120+ boxes) purchased through Government Contract means you can't do hardware refreshes every six months to ensure you have the latest graphics cards to drive some of these effects.

[Rotareneg]

24 minutes ago, AlphaOneSix said:

Here is where I set the bar:  Moon phases!

 

 

I'm pretty sure SB 4 does have moon phases, so at least it's got that going for it.

[Kev2go]

2 hours ago, Rotareneg said:

I agree, I'm disappointed SB doesn't look like this:

 

 

 

If some game can have graphics like that, why doesn't an actual simulation like SB look at least as good?!?

 

 

 

 

 

TBH i think your being sarcastic, with providing an extreme example.

 

 

no one here is expecting SB or any sim to look super pretty,  but getting the the game to be updated  to the point so it doesn't look like  2001 dx7 game found from from EB games bargain bin isnt unreasonable expectation. So yea newer models with DX9 at  least put it on respectable level. OF course when any sim is concerned graphics with long draw distances. Hency why Op examples pf comparison werent really unfair.

 

BUt again i should really have to say this since well, updated models , terriain , and weather ar confirmed to arrive with 4.0 and future 4.0 follow on updates.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Kev2go

[GSprocket]

W3 is not a good example. Draw distances are very short - the whole map is 4x4km of active area at most, and details are only drawn to a few hundred m. The number of active AI entities is small, with fairly canned routines. AI interaction distances are only around 50m.

That is completely inadequate for a modern combat simulation. Weapon ranges can exceed 4km, sighted ranges to as much as 10km with ground based high magnification TIS or optical systems.

AI entities may need to interact over 5-8km and will typically fight at 1-2.5km or more. "Too close" is a thing - with many sights being unusable/unhelpful at 200m or so.

Infantry can be dangerous with organic AT weaponry at over 500m, and with support weapons to 2-4km, and can call fires all the way to their visual boundary.

[Rotareneg]

Uh, I guess the "" at the end of my post wasn't obvious enough...

[Rotareneg]

And remember, the graphics could always be worse:

 

[Kev2go]

41 minutes ago, Rotareneg said:

And remember, the graphics could always be worse:

 

 

yes if we time travel back to 1984.

 

but it could be worse. we could not havy any graphics at all and instead have SB text based.

 

 

Edited July 13, 2016 by Kev2go

[Ssnake]

We can do better.

 

0450Z 13JUL16. Short before dawn your platoon of Pizarro IFVs is located at 0521 7982. To the east there is a minor ridgeline, to the north you can make out the contours of a small patch of forest.

? east, slow

 

0456Z 13JUL16. As you approach the ridge line your gunner reports the thermal signature of one BRDM armored scout vehicle, 1610m to the southeast. You are now at 0553 8005.

? hold fire, observe

 

0459Z 13JUL16. After what appears as an eternity, a second BRDM is being spotted at 0641 7870. The first, moving in a northwestern direction at 0632 7923, is seconds away from reaching low ground where it will escape your observation. You are still at 0553 8005.

? fire at will, APDS, 0632 7923 first

 

0500Z 13JUL16. You press the red arming button of your Pizarro IFV. The evacuation fan of your 30mm Mauser cannon starts howling while the chain gun rapidly cycles the ammo feed. You and your wingman open fire on the BRDM at 1140m distance while your platoon sergeant engages the distant vehicle. Your target stops moving. Seconds later the other BRDM is set ablaze, its flames a grim funeral pyre lighting up the dry, now sooty ground at 0641 7870.

? 1st section advance 0632 7923, 2nd section cover from 0553 8005

 

0506Z 13JUL16. Your section reaches the immobilized BRDM. One crew hatch is open, a spatter of blood and footsteps on the ground leading towards some brushes to the northeast. You are at 0632 7923.

? 1st section dismount. Wingman squad trace footsteps. Own squad examine BRDM.

 

0507Z 13JUL16. Your men sift through the items found in the BRDM. You notice a notepad and some maps in a brown leather bag. Also, the men present two AKM automatic rifles and a belt of 14.5mm heavy MG ammunition, a can of fuel, and a dead crew members (gunner). The driver is bleeding profusely, and unconscious.

? _

[Grenny]

If i say:"just switch to dirextX 11"

How are chances that f.e. Lukas will strangle me with a keyboard-cable?

[BigBadVuk]

Im 100% one day we all  ( including military customers ) will have good enough hardware to have huge maps and 60 fps constantly even with graphics like this:

 

But if we cant have both at same time im for fps and big maps instead of graphics like above.

 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2016 by BigBadVuk

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, Grenny said:

If i say:"just switch to dirextX 11"

How are chances that f.e. Lukas will strangle me with a keyboard-cable?

 

From behind the safety of your internet connection?

Slim.

[Parachuteprone]

3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

We can do better.

 

0450Z 13JUL16. Short before dawn your platoon of Pizarro IFVs is located at 0521 7982. To the east there is a minor ridgeline, to the north you can make out the contours of a small patch of forest.

? east, slow

 

0456Z 13JUL16. As you approach the ridge line your gunner reports the thermal signature of one BRDM armored scout vehicle, 1610m to the southeast. You are now at 0553 8005.

? hold fire, observe

 

0459Z 13JUL16. After what appears as an eternity, a second BRDM is being spotted at 0641 7870. The first, moving in a northwestern direction at 0632 7923, is seconds away from reaching low ground where it will escape your observation. You are still at 0553 8005.

? fire at will, APDS, 0632 7923 first

 

0500Z 13JUL16. You press the red arming button of your Pizarro IFV. The evacuation fan of your 30mm Mauser cannon starts howling while the chain gun rapidly cycles the ammo feed. You and your wingman open fire on the BRDM at 1140m distance while your platoon sergeant engages the distant vehicle. Your target stops moving. Seconds later the other BRDM is set ablaze, its flames a grim funeral pyre lighting up the dry, now sooty ground at 0641 7870.

? 1st section advance 0632 7923, 2nd section cover from 0553 8005

 

0506Z 13JUL16. Your section reaches the immobilized BRDM. One crew hatch is open, a spatter of blood and footsteps on the ground leading towards some brushes to the northeast. You are at 0632 7923.

? 1st section dismount. Wingman squad trace footsteps. Own squad examine BRDM.

 

0507Z 13JUL16. Your men sift through the items found in the BRDM. You notice a notepad and some maps in a brown leather bag. Also, the men present two AKM automatic rifles and a belt of 14.5mm heavy MG ammunition, a can of fuel, and a dead crew members (gunner). The driver is bleeding profusely, and unconscious.

? _

You have found your true calling

[mpdugas]

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

We can do better.

 

 

Agreed.

 

None of the examples shown are simulators with small maps, constricted LOS, low complexity or poor performance on modern machinery.  There is no reason to say that it is an either/or choice; better graphics and high performance in complex simulations is readily available today.

 

Some of the examples are working with graphics engines that are even older than SB Pro.

Edited July 13, 2016 by mpdugas
clarity

[Azure Lion]

I feel that, as a sim, everything should be simulated as close to reality as possible, graphics and all:

 

[Grenny]

1 hour ago, mpdugas said:

 

Agreed.

 

None of the examples shown are simulators with small maps, constricted LOS, low complexity or poor performance on modern machinery.  There is no reason to say that it is an either/or choice; better graphics and high performance in complex simulations is readily available today.

 

Some of the examples are working with graphics engines that are even older than SB Pro.

 

Just to be able to compare the examples in post one, the games shown can/have:

-completely editable terrain (mapeditor)?

-can handele BN size and above level of action (at least 100+ vehicles on map)?

-map of 80x80km or bigger?

 

[mpdugas]

1 hour ago, Grenny said:

 

Just to be able to compare the examples in post one, the games shown can/have:

-completely editable terrain (mapeditor)?

-can handele BN size and above level of action (at least 100+ vehicles on map)?

-map of 80x80km or bigger?

 

 

The examples shown have far larger maps (e.g. BMS and DCSW), greater model detail and complexity (all), active AI production via dynamic campaign (BMS, with far more than 100 AI vehicles in-game at any one time).

 

The cockpits of all these simulations are far more involved and complex than any of SB Pro's tank interiors.  Even M1 Tank Platoon II had a clickable tank interior:

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=m1+tank+platoon+2&&view=detail&mid=4647824A36289C52FF394647824A36289C52FF39&FORM=VRDGAR

 

The editable map feature of SB Pro has no impact on in-game graphics display function.  It is a nice feature, just as Falcon's weather editor, with real-time feed, is a nice feature.  But it is not a graphics quality issue.

Edited July 13, 2016 by mpdugas
correct omission

[Lt DeFault]

IMHO: It's easy, when you're not the one who has to do all the programming, to say "This sim should have this and that." But when you take into account the amount of work necessary compared to the size of the workforce, along with considerations already mentioned, like contractual obligations, backwards compatibility and the hardware limitations of military customers, you begin to see just how not-so-easy it really is. Ssnake and the rest of the eSim team have never said these goals are off the table. On the contrary, I think they've all stated that they'd like to see it happen...one day. Until then, I doubt they need to be shown examples of what is possible in terms of graphics. It's their business, after all.

 

There's nothing wrong with expressing your wishes or aspiring to better standards. So long as you remember to keep your feet on the ground while your head is in the clouds. Steel Beasts is, IMO, already a great sim...and it keeps getting better. Compared to ten years ago, the sim has evolved in leaps and bounds. I, for one, am content to wait and see just what the future has in store, whatever the time frame.

 

Just my two cents.

[Azure Lion]

I feel Lt. Default is correct, there are so many things to take into consideration here, and the main thing I feel are the military customers and the constraints they have. While I was in the Air Force at the various locations I was stationed, most of the computers were pretty antiquated, and even those that got new systems usually got only the bare minimum. My personal computer at the time was several years old and aging yet out-classed anything the military had me using as far as desktops.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Azure Lion