Suggestion for graphics of SB Pro 4.1

[Ssnake]

2 hours ago, mpdugas said:

Other people have shown interest in this simple idea: the need for strenuous training under more realistic psychological pressure is significant, and it is not a trivial matter.

 

...and yet, the points that you bring up like rainwater streaming along a canopy are entirely irrelevant for any kind of training purpose; they improve immersion. That's not bad, but immersion is no substitute for training value. You bring up mud - and I agree, having mud would be nice - if the presence of mud also results in different driving behavior, not only for human players but computer-controlled drivers would be similarly affected, and adapt their behavior to such conditions. Shadows are another great example - you ask for deeper, better looking shadows, and I am not entirely disinclined here - but what I'm interested at (and my opinion does count since I am, like it or nor, largely responsible for design decisions) is the presence of shadows influencing AI behavior (something that we haven't accomplished, and won't in the foreseeable future, because it's a pretty fuzzy behavioral factor).

 

I'm sorry, but what I'm reading is mostly scratching the surface and nothing else. Which is why I don't value your opinion as much as you probably think it deserves.

 

 

Quote

It's not my style that is at issue here.  I don't ask you to do anything.

 

a) Yes, it is

b) Yes, implicitly you do. Case in point, you titled your own thread by "Suggestions for graphics of SB Pro 4.1"

 

 

Quote

Your answer to my constructive criticism is simply to threaten to silence me.

 

No. Your opinion, even if it runs contrary to mine, is appreciated. What I do not appreciate is that you ignore all arguments coming from the very developer that you want to change somethin telling you that it's not quite as simple as you make it to be. That's not "constructive criticism", it's closer to ignorant dismissal. You don't actually read or try to comprehend what the people who disagree with you are trying to tell you. You just pick the bits and pieces that fit your preconceived ideas and ignore everything that doesn't. Either this is a disingenious way to participate in a discussion (you don't sound like you're stupid), or it's at least on the borderline to trolling.

 

Tree collisions alone, just to stick to that point that so far you chose to ignore, is a HUGE issue in ground simulation, simply because of the sheer numbers (millions), the large areas that are affected (anywhere up to 80%), the fact that tree branches can prematurely detonate munitions passing through, and we haven't even touched the issue of line of sight calculations. Given that the topic of trees in ground simulations is a widely covered topic in the academic field of modeling & simulations and that you do not need to invest weeks to learn a certain software in order to find out what this is about, I suggest that this time YOU do your own leg work and read up a little bit about the associated mathematics before you go on. Because if you are really interested in meaningful answers, you need to learn to ask meaningful questions and present relevant examples. DCS World and Falcon 4 are not relevant for a wide range of reasons; let me just say "ground resolution".

If we reduced the terrain mesh width in Falcon or DCS to the levels that are used in SB Pro - 12.5 meters - rather than the hundreds of meters that they use you'd grind these simulations to a halt because they simply could not perform the line of sight calculations that they currently do.

Handling ground forces in a non-persistent simulation bubble is permissible - good practice even - for a jet bomber simulation, but absolutely no-go for simulating ground combat in professional training for the roles for which SB Pro is being used.

 

NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING that you presented so far can be directly applied to our case in the way that you did it. That's not to say that SB Pro is perfect the way it is and that nothing can be improved. There is a lot of room for improvement. We know it very well, it's just that, and I've been telling you this right from the start, not only are the questions at hand more complicated than you make them sound to be, we're also talking about entirely different economical boundary conditions. Team size is one that you chose to declare as "irrelevant" (based on what knowledge?), market size is one, and let's not forget that the old Falcon 4 engine that the countless volunteers of programmers improved to the culminating point of BMS, had a head start of more than 11 million USD that Microprose sunk into the engine's development.

I'm not the least diminishishing the accomplishment of the people that worked on Falcon after Microprose went bust - the very same people make up for 80% of the current Steel Beasts programmers' team - by saying that they built the BMS pyramid on the top of a very tall mountain that Microprose bulldozed into the landscape.

 

Steel Beasts is "just" a pyramid built on a level ground. It was literally built from scratch and hasn't yet received the same finishing treatment that BMS is to the original Falcon 4. So it's also not quite so shiny to look at. You don't need to tell me that because I very well know that myself.

 

 

Quote

I don't care if you ban me; your censorship just stills my constructive, critical commentary.  So, yeah, it is about suppressing an opinion.  Do what you wanna do.

 

Will you please quit your passive-aggressive celebration of victimhood. So far I haven't censored anything, nor have I suppressed your opinion. I did however point out that your opinion is neither particularly constructive nor substantially more valuable than my neighbor's, who knows nothing about the work of my company at all (except that it exists). Once that you demonstrate that you're willing to actually listen to anything that others here say and that you begin to admit that cherrypicking isolated examples from different simulations rather than looking at the entire package I will be more attentive.

I have no problem with criticism if I'm being criticized for failing what I'm trying to accomplish. But telling me that my work isn't "X" when I'm actually working on "Y" can only result in a dismissive grunt and some eyerolling.

[Ssnake]

2 minutes ago, CalAB said:

Hey mpdugas,

A quick question, do you or have you ever served your country in any military capacity ?

 

Where is the relevance of this when judging the validity of arguments such as the ones in question?

One may still come to different conclusions when it's about the relative importance of certain elements for their application in training. But at the core of his argument is the assertion that because 'A' can be found in "X", and 'B' can be found in "Y", it should be easily possible to have 'A', 'B', and 'C' in "Z".

[CalAB]

I only ask based on the hysterics placed on graphics in an effort to reproduce a realism that can only be found in actually doing the real thing.  Those that serve know that simulators can't replace the real thing.  Training with simulators saves money and time but application of this training reaches it's fulfillment in the real world.  Just my opinion but your product serves a purpose in training and familiarizing first and foremost.  The military needs to see application of this training in the field, you don't get that in a sim, ever. 

[Azure Lion]

If I may mpdugas,

 

This is not the first time that graphics has come up, thus, nor is this the first thread concerning such.

There have even been arguments of graphics vs games like World of Tanks, War Thunder, and ARMA to name but a few. However, all of these games have pre-rendered maps that are not editable, and WoT and WT both use very small maps, usually no more than 1 km² for the ground battles. Even DCSW has only two maps that I am aware of for 1.5 and 2.0.

As has been stated, better graphics are always welcomed, but is generally not the top priority in simulations, especially when there are limited resources.

 

One major thing I would like to point out is that SB Pro has a map editor. One has the ability to place everything that is on the map, even bodies of water, and move it around, set the slickness of the terrain which impacts traction of vehicles, as well as the type of theme concerning climate then select up to about a 484 km² map to use in one's scenario in the Personal Edition. To have a malleable map in which line of sight and nav-meshes are also calculated upon, to me in my humble opinion, is much more desirable over a single map that will become learned with enough iterations of play upon it. Which in turn, does not help one to learn to be flexible and use fluid tactics concerning terrain.

 

With the 4.0 and 4.x iterations to come, weather and terrain are both getting a graphics update, as well as 'bouncy' road wheels, to name a few added features.

 

One thing I suggest looking into is comparing Steel Beasts Pro PE with any other Armored Fighting Vehicle simulator out there and compare them in their entirety, not just one or two aspects like graphics. I have yet, in my humble opinion, to find anything even comparably close to the quality and versatility of Steel Beasts.

 

And, as per your recommendation, I did download and try DCSW. Though nice, I cannot say that I am any more impressed, or even impressed, with it over any other flight sims I have played as far as graphics are concerned. The clouds rolling while I look around is a bit annoying actually. I am more partial to the Microsoft Flight Simulator X (released Oct 2006) and newer as far as flight sim graphics are concerned. But then, Microsoft is worth almost $300 billion now with quite a bit of positive cash flow, so resources are not so limited for them. ...and even here, the maps are not editable.

 

With that, everyone please have a great weekend.

 

If anyone is interested, here is a link explaining a bit about the Global Terrain software that Microsoft Games used for Flight Simulator X:

https://www.microsoft.com/Products/Games/FSInsider/developers/Pages/GlobalTerrain.aspx

 

Edited July 17, 2016 by Azure Lion

[ryujin2]

9 hours ago, mpdugas said:

All of the technical and resource 'objections' that you raise have been solved quite well by the other software that I have shown as examples.  They do all that you say cannot be done, yet you insist that it is technically and logistically impossible.

 

That's like saying that Portugal should build a few carriers, they're great and clearly since the US has built a bunch of them all the problems have been solved. Never mind that Portugal probably wouldn't find aircraft carriers that useful, they'd suck all the resources from the rest of their military, and it'd likely take most of the budget for the entire government every year. Possible is a relative term. I don't know why you don't take Ssnake's word for it that's all more complicated than you seem to think. But as someone with plenty of experience in the games industry, I can tell you he's absolutely right in all his points. It would be massively more complex than you think and almost certainly not worth the effort and expense for a training sim. 

 

Realistically as far as SB graphics suggestions go, the most bang for buck would likely be a slow improvement of lighting/shaders/post. That's really what looks the most off in game, that unnatural flat lighting lighting look. Ultimately the training utility of nicer lighting is slim, but a few improvements there would go a long way.  

[Grenny]

Having had a closer looks on available sources without spending actuall money...

 

By now I think I need not repeat that better graphics are desired by everyone. What I object to is the  form in which arguments are presented.

 

My impressions from the softwares:

-DCS   +better particle effects then SB (currently with 3.028 :-P ) and higl detailed Aircraft cockpits

           -terrain is rather flat and of low resolution, interaction between "ground" and units is limited (collision model LOS model etc etc)

-BMS   +Larger maps and better weather effects (still only true for SB version 3.028...but thats just my p.o.v. and others can onyl see it after release)

           - The terrain Object look much worse, terrain looks only good from altitude low on the grounds "poster graphics)

           - the stated dynamic groundwarefare is "story backround" with a map populated with units doing a scripted show, users I spoke to say there is no real "combined arm warefare" going on at ground level 

-IL-2  +detailed Ground with even moving vegetation (nice)

          - the stated 350+ times 200 km is THE map for the whole programm (no other available). I found no evidence that you can operate on the ground freely over the whole

            map

I don't know if the was the OP's intention, but it looks like somehings I know very well from my dayjob:

We give the enduser 3 Options:

A (with upsides +U and downsided -V)

B (with +W and -X)

C(with +Y and -Z)

And he says: No No, I want a solution D that has +U,+W and +Y but NOT -V,-X,-Z....which for the engineers is alway one of those facepalm moments.

 

Edited July 17, 2016 by Grenny

[mpdugas]

8 hours ago, Ssnake said:

 

...and yet, the points that you bring up like rainwater streaming along a canopy are entirely irrelevant for any kind of training purpose; they improve immersion. That's not bad, but immersion is no substitute for training value. You bring up mud - and I agree, having mud would be nice - if the presence of mud also results in different driving behavior, not only for human players but computer-controlled drivers would be similarly affected, and adapt their behavior to such conditions. Shadows are another great example - you ask for deeper, better looking shadows, and I am not entirely disinclined here - but what I'm interested at (and my opinion does count since I am, like it or nor, largely responsible for design decisions) is the presence of shadows influencing AI behavior (something that we haven't accomplished, and won't in the foreseeable future, because it's a pretty fuzzy behavioral factor).

 

I'm sorry, but what I'm reading is mostly scratching the surface and nothing else. Which is why I don't value your opinion as much as you probably think it deserves.

 

 

 

a) Yes, it is

b) Yes, implicitly you do. Case in point, you titled your own thread by "Suggestions for graphics of SB Pro 4.1"

 

 

 

No. Your opinion, even if it runs contrary to mine, is appreciated. What I do not appreciate is that you ignore all arguments coming from the very developer that you want to change somethin telling you that it's not quite as simple as you make it to be. That's not "constructive criticism", it's closer to ignorant dismissal. You don't actually read or try to comprehend what the people who disagree with you are trying to tell you. You just pick the bits and pieces that fit your preconceived ideas and ignore everything that doesn't. Either this is a disingenious way to participate in a discussion (you don't sound like you're stupid), or it's at least on the borderline to trolling.

 

Tree collisions alone, just to stick to that point that so far you chose to ignore, is a HUGE issue in ground simulation, simply because of the sheer numbers (millions), the large areas that are affected (anywhere up to 80%), the fact that tree branches can prematurely detonate munitions passing through, and we haven't even touched the issue of line of sight calculations. Given that the topic of trees in ground simulations is a widely covered topic in the academic field of modeling & simulations and that you do not need to invest weeks to learn a certain software in order to find out what this is about, I suggest that this time YOU do your own leg work and read up a little bit about the associated mathematics before you go on. Because if you are really interested in meaningful answers, you need to learn to ask meaningful questions and present relevant examples. DCS World and Falcon 4 are not relevant for a wide range of reasons; let me just say "ground resolution".

If we reduced the terrain mesh width in Falcon or DCS to the levels that are used in SB Pro - 12.5 meters - rather than the hundreds of meters that they use you'd grind these simulations to a halt because they simply could not perform the line of sight calculations that they currently do.

Handling ground forces in a non-persistent simulation bubble is permissible - good practice even - for a jet bomber simulation, but absolutely no-go for simulating ground combat in professional training for the roles for which SB Pro is being used.

 

NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING that you presented so far can be directly applied to our case in the way that you did it. That's not to say that SB Pro is perfect the way it is and that nothing can be improved. There is a lot of room for improvement. We know it very well, it's just that, and I've been telling you this right from the start, not only are the questions at hand more complicated than you make them sound to be, we're also talking about entirely different economical boundary conditions. Team size is one that you chose to declare as "irrelevant" (based on what knowledge?), market size is one, and let's not forget that the old Falcon 4 engine that the countless volunteers of programmers improved to the culminating point of BMS, had a head start of more than 11 million USD that Microprose sunk into the engine's development.

I'm not the least diminishishing the accomplishment of the people that worked on Falcon after Microprose went bust - the very same people make up for 80% of the current Steel Beasts programmers' team - by saying that they built the BMS pyramid on the top of a very tall mountain that Microprose bulldozed into the landscape.

 

Steel Beasts is "just" a pyramid built on a level ground. It was literally built from scratch and hasn't yet received the same finishing treatment that BMS is to the original Falcon 4. So it's also not quite so shiny to look at. You don't need to tell me that because I very well know that myself.

 

 

 

Will you please quit your passive-aggressive celebration of victimhood. So far I haven't censored anything, nor have I suppressed your opinion. I did however point out that your opinion is neither particularly constructive nor substantially more valuable than my neighbor's, who knows nothing about the work of my company at all (except that it exists). Once that you demonstrate that you're willing to actually listen to anything that others here say and that you begin to admit that cherrypicking isolated examples from different simulations rather than looking at the entire package I will be more attentive.

I have no problem with criticism if I'm being criticized for failing what I'm trying to accomplish. But telling me that my work isn't "X" when I'm actually working on "Y" can only result in a dismissive grunt and some eyerolling.

 

 

If you look at my original post, I offered the video of BMS for two purposes:

1. to show that old code can be made to perform well today; and

2. to show that weather that has an effect on 3D objects in the game world is substantially different than pseudo-weather effects that are nothing more than an animation played on a transparency inserted between the viewer and the camera.  If you keep saying that it is a bad way to handle LOS calculations or the like, then you are simply creating a straw man of it.

 

It would be helpful if readers keep the stated purpose, which I wrote in my OP, for each video inserted as an example.  That connection, alone, would have saved me and Grenny many posts, trying to explain that I did not suggest that BMS was the way to go to model 100's of ground objects; their ability to generate AI opposition in a dynamic campaign is very applicable, however.  You cannot fly into North Korean airspace, for instance, during a campaign and not meet enormous resistance of a rather high quality for an AI NPC.  That ability to actively generate AI opposition would make an outstanding addition to any tank simulation.  eSim should certainly consider it; nothing is more enjoyable than playing against a cunning AI adversary.

 

 

I do not recall bringing shadows into my discussion, perhaps so you are confusing other commentary with mine.  However, I agree that shadows, fog, rain, wind, moonlight, weather effects that have a tangible impact on the actions of the player and AI are valuable indeed.  Real vehicle tracks, persistent destruction effects, those are the building blocks of an emotional experience.  Immersion is what makes the psychological impact of fear, doubt, uncertainty and confusion have perceptible value.

 

For those who think that PC games can't charge the experience with real emotional impact, take a look at :

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2838314/software-games/15-terrifying-pc-horror-games-to-play-with-the-lights-off.html

 

 

As for my so-called style, I will leave that comment in the realm of unhelpful fuzzy behavioral factoring.  If you have to rely on what is implicit in what I say, which is not much more than your or anyone's individual interpretation, then that is bad form.

 

 

There is a really good movie out there called "The Edge".  It stars Anthony Hopkins and Alex Baldwin.  Well worth the watch if you haven't seen it already.  In the movie, the protagonist, played by Anthony Hopkins, makes a very simple, life-saving remark:  "What one man can do, another man can do."

 

 

 

I am not a software engineer.  I am a visionary.  I am a random-abstract thinker, organizing information by reflection in unstructured environments.  I do not need an software engineering degree to see that what IL-2 can do, you can do, too.  This simply is not an all-or-nothing kind of problem.  Steel Beasts Pro can, in fact, be every bit as emotionally compelling as IL-2, for example.

 

I see the possibility in life that some people, like concrete-sequential thinking engineers, sometimes do not.  I do not allow all of your comments about "terrain resolution" and "line-of-sight calculations" to stop the process of analysis and transformation.  Is the task difficult?  Perhaps so.  Perhaps not.  It is certainly not insurmountable.  There are too many examples to the contrary for that to be so.

 

Is it expensive?  Maybe not, if you allow people to help eSim.  Maybe so, and then that is what crowd-funding is all about.

 

I know this: what one man can do, another man can do.  What IL-2, DCSW and BMS, among many others, can do, so too can eSim.

 

 

IL-2 is an air simulator.  It works with maps substantially larger than SB pro.  It works convincingly on the smallest of details, at the closest, most intimate distances, and over long ranges, to the limit of the simulation's view.  It even has tanks that can be player-controlled in it, too.

 

Watch the IL-2 video:

 

The German convoy approaches the the Russian tanks lying in hidden ambush, rising dust from their many vehicles clouds the whole scene, drifting away from the road, filling the viewer's vision with a thick, persistent, blurring haze.  The blades of grass, the bushes, they sway and move gently in the breeze.

 

The T-34s move from their hiding place, grumbling unto a higher position from which to conduct their attack.  Their 3D models are impressively detailed.  You can hear the tank commander give his shouted orders.  Once in place, they take aim on the distant, approaching Germans.

 

The engagement of the German half-tracks and trucks begins over a very long distance, almost at the limit of unaided vision.  The dust generated by the tank's cannon shot blossoms out in a large cloud surrounding the tank. The tank rocks on its tracks, absorbing the recoil with its mass.  The explosions that land near the Germans are fairly realistic and vary with each round.    Bits and pieces fly up and away from the exploding vehicles.  Soldiers run in panic away from the flames.  The stricken convoy calls for help by radio.

 

A Stuka lifts off from its airfield in response, flying to defend them by engaging the Russians.  Its undercarriage wheels leave tracks, and even show the gaps in the tire marks produced by the bouncing tail wheel.  Its prop wash flattens the grass and bushes as it passes over them; a large dust cloud forms in the wake of its passing.  The main wheels bounce and piston into the rubber gaiters that protect the landing struts.  Even the half-track which accompanies the taxiing plane has remarkably good detail, and its tread moves realistically over the supporting road wheels.  The Stuka model is finely detailed, full of life and believable animations, dark red jets of burning fuel pop from each stubby exhaust pipe in turn.  Its crew figures even move with some sense that they might actually be involved in the fight, not just along for the ride.  The pilot takes a deep breath, looks left and right, and begins his take-off roll.  His gunner prepares his position for fighting, checking the freedom of movement of his machine gun mount.

 

The defensive attack is a surprise to the tanks, destroying the first victim instantly, the clatter and banging of cannon strikes are heard and seen right next to the surviving tank, which hastily slips and slides down the road, skittering to first one side then the other, in its hurry to escape the plane's attack.  It quickly buttons-up, and the view from inside the detailed turret is naturally tight and claustrophobic.  Dust boils up from its treads, and clumps of dirt are thrown forward as its tracks scramble for grip.  The tread links clank and clatter over the top of the road wheels and exhaust smoke pours from its pipes.  There is a palpable, real sense of fear from the tank crew, who only moments earlier were dealing death from afar, only now to find themselves the hunted.  Light flashes inside the instrumented tank compartment as cannon strikes penetrate the hull.  The stricken T-34 tank reacts to the damage of the cannon-fire by the Stuka; one tread is shot-up, partly damaged, but the tank crabs and claws its way forward, awkwardly, clumsily, mortally wounded.  Smoke pours from the crushed engine compartment; it's broken, and its struggling movements reflect its new reality, but still, it tries to escape, only to be defeated at last, wobbling to a stop, a wreck of a vehicle in the midst of a green field of grass.  It spins in place, moving in a circle on the remaining tread, pushing its broken wheels in a clumsy attempt to maintain facing on the circling bird of death.

 

The Stuka is late, and the pilot circles his comrades on the ground, knowing that so many were likely wounded and killed.  Most of the German vehicles lie in blackened heaps, in ruins.

 

The pilot of the Stuka is human controlled.  The rest of the battle is AI, and it is very convincing AI.

 

IL-2, of all the examples that I have proffered, is the closest to SB Pro in content.

 

Here are a few comments for you to consider.  The first two are issues that you have never replied to, and your responses are glaringly conspicuous by their absence, so I want to lay them out here, clearly, so they don't get buried in all of the hyperbole:

 

1. the technical possibility of such kinds of software, i.e. the graphics embellishments and contributions that make their products so emotionally compelling, is evident from the examples that I offered to you; perhaps you will consult with the management of IL-2, DCSW and BMS, among others, to see how they have done this.  What they can do, you, too, can do.

 

2. the resource limitations that you keep raising as an objection are only a 'red herring'.  You have dozens, if not hundreds, of people willing to help eSim at the lifting of your finger.  If BMS can do it, under the burden of working with similar proprietary software and ownership issues, then I am certain that you could, too, if you would but trust your many fans.  What BMS can do, eSim can do.

 

3. there are many ways to fund the sorts of activities that make all of this possible.  eSim could even raise the money to cover cost of the license of a new graphics engine.  Crowd-sourcing is an excellent example; many people will contribute to your efforts if only to receive the benefits in a copy of the software when eSim is done.

 

4. ignore all of this and keep doing what you've always done, so you can continue to get what you've always gotten.

 

 

 

On that note, I would, again, ask you to refrain from using belittling and inflammatory speech.  It diminishes you, personally.  If you threaten someone with banishment, or censorship, then it naturally lends a chill to the air of discussion.

 

[mpdugas]

25 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Having had a closer looks on available sources without spending actuall money...

 

By now I think I need not repeat that better graphics are desired by everyone. What I object to is the  form in which arguments are presented.

 

My impressions from the softwares:

-DCS   +better particle effects then SB (currently with 3.028 :-P ) and higl detailed Aircraft cockpits

           -terrain is rather flat and of low resolution, interaction between "ground" and units is limited (collision model LOS model etc etc)

-BMS   +Larger maps and better weather effects (still only true for SB version 3.028...but thats you my p.o.v. and others can onyl see it after release)

           - The terrain Object look much worse, terrain looks only good from altitude low on the grounds "poster graphics)

           - the stated dynamic groundwarefare is "story backround" with a map populated with units doing a scripted show, users I spoke to say there is no real "combined arm warefare" going on at ground level 

-IL-2  +detailed Ground with even moving vegetation (nice)

          - the stated 350+ times 200 km is THE map for the whole programm (no other available). I found no evidence that you can operate on the ground freely over the whole

            map

I don't know if the was the OP's intention, but it looks like somehings I know very well from my dayjob:

We give the enduser 3 Options:

A (with upsides +U and downsided -V)

B (with +W and -X)

C(with +Y and -Z)

And he says: No No, I want a solution D that has +U,+W and +Y but NOT -V,-X,-Z....which for the engineers is alway one of those facepalm moments.

 

 Well, you got me there...

[mpdugas]

1 hour ago, ryujin2 said:

 

That's like saying that Portugal should build a few carriers, they're great and clearly since the US has built a bunch of them all the problems have been solved. Never mind that Portugal probably wouldn't find aircraft carriers that useful, they'd suck all the resources from the rest of their military, and it'd likely take most of the budget for the entire government every year. Possible is a relative term. I don't know why you don't take Ssnake's word for it that's all more complicated than you seem to think. But as someone with plenty of experience in the games industry, I can tell you he's absolutely right in all his points. It would be massively more complex than you think and almost certainly not worth the effort and expense for a training sim. 

 

Realistically as far as SB graphics suggestions go, the most bang for buck would likely be a slow improvement of lighting/shaders/post. That's really what looks the most off in game, that unnatural flat lighting lighting look. Ultimately the training utility of nicer lighting is slim, but a few improvements there would go a long way.  

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand any of this.  Are you saying that the military organizations of Portugal and the United States are analogous to eSim and some other software company?

[Lt DeFault]

6 minutes ago, mpdugas said:

I am a visionary.  I am a random-abstract thinker...

 

Well, that's one way to say it.

[mpdugas]

3 hours ago, Azure Lion said:

If I may mpdugas,

 

This is not the first time that graphics has come up, thus, nor is this the first thread concerning such.

There have even been arguments of graphics vs games like World of Tanks, War Thunder, and ARMA to name but a few. However, all of these games have pre-rendered maps that are not editable, and WoT and WT both use very small maps, usually no more than 1 km² for the ground battles. Even DCSW has only two maps that I am aware of for 1.5 and 2.0.

As has been stated, better graphics are always welcomed, but is generally not the top priority in simulations, especially when there are limited resources.

 

One major thing I would like to point out is that SB Pro has a map editor. One has the ability to place everything that is on the map, even bodies of water, and move it around, set the slickness of the terrain which impacts traction of vehicles, as well as the type of theme concerning climate then select up to about a 484 km² map to use in one's scenario in the Personal Edition. To have a malleable map in which line of sight and nav-meshes are also calculated upon, to me in my humble opinion, is much more desirable over a single map that will become learned with enough iterations of play upon it. Which in turn, does not help one to learn to be flexible and use fluid tactics concerning terrain.

 

With the 4.0 and 4.x iterations to come, weather and terrain are both getting a graphics update, as well as 'bouncy' road wheels, to name a few added features.

 

One thing I suggest looking into is comparing Steel Beasts Pro PE with any other Armored Fighting Vehicle simulator out there and compare them in their entirety, not just one or two aspects like graphics. I have yet, in my humble opinion, to find anything even comparably close to the quality and versatility of Steel Beasts.

 

And, as per your recommendation, I did download and try DCSW. Though nice, I cannot say that I am any more impressed, or even impressed, with it over any other flight sims I have played as far as graphics are concerned. The clouds rolling while I look around is a bit annoying actually. I am more partial to the Microsoft Flight Simulator X (released Oct 2006) and newer as far as flight sim graphics are concerned. But then, Microsoft is worth almost $300 billion now with quite a bit of positive cash flow, so resources are not so limited for them. ...and even here, the maps are not editable.

 

With that, everyone please have a great weekend.

 

If anyone is interested, here is a link explaining a bit about the Global Terrain software that Microsoft Games used for Flight Simulator X:

https://www.microsoft.com/Products/Games/FSInsider/developers/Pages/GlobalTerrain.aspx

 

Thanks for giving DCSW a try; at least you gave it a shot.

 

With the free version, unfortunately, you can't really get into the terrain, except from flight.  Personally, I think it looks pretty good, better than the more sterile landscape of SB Pro.

 

But I give you full snaps for trying.

[mpdugas]

9 hours ago, CalAB said:

Hey mpdugas,

A quick question, do you or have you ever served your country in any military capacity ?

 

Well, I fail to see what this has to do with anything, but here goes:

 

I served honorably in both the US Navy and the US Army,  in the fixed wing, air component of both services (USN anti-submarine warfare, USArmy low altitude reconnaissance over North Viet Nam, Laos, and Cambodia; I am a combat veteran of Viet Nam, and I am permanently and totally disabled from injuries received in the line of duty.

 

Is that sufficient for you?

[ryujin2]

19 minutes ago, mpdugas said:

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand any of this.  Are you saying that the military organizations of Portugal and the United States are analogous to eSim and some other software company?

 

Yes. What's possible or a good idea for one company isn't necessarily possible or a good idea for another company. Saying that because it was possible and a good idea for one company, it must be for all companies makes no sense. Resources and priorities are always a factor. You haven't actually addressed the technical or resource issues of massively overhauling the graphics as they relate to esim. As Ssnake has mentioned all why doing all of this isn't a realistic idea for esim. Not that it can't be done in the general sense. 

[Azure Lion]

Well, if nice graphics combined with modern AFVs is what you are looking for, you might look into Armored Warfare. From what I have seen, it looks pretty nice.

[CalAB]

1 hour ago, mpdugas said:

 

Well, I fail to see what this has to do with anything, but here goes:

 

I served honorably in both the US Navy and the US Army,  in the fixed wing, air component of both services (USN anti-submarine warfare, USArmy low altitude reconnaissance over North Viet Nam, Laos, and Cambodia; I am a combat veteran of Viet Nam, and I am permanently and totally disabled from injuries received in the line of duty.

 

Is that sufficient for you?

Salute mpdugas, I hope your country supports you in your civilian endeavours.  Gripe on.

[Kev2go]

13 hours ago, Azure Lion said:

If=

And, as per your recommendation, I did download and try DCSW. Though nice, I cannot say that I am any more impressed, or even impressed, with it over any other flight sims I have played as far as graphics are concerned. The clouds rolling while I look around is a bit annoying actually. I am more partial to the Microsoft Flight Simulator X (released Oct 2006) and newer as far as flight sim graphics are concerned. But then, Microsoft is worth almost $300 billion now with quite a bit of positive cash flow, so resources are not so limited for them. ...and even here, the maps are not editable.

 

With that, everyone please have a great weekend.

 

If anyone is interested, here is a link explaining a bit about the Global Terrain software that Microsoft Games used for Flight Simulator X:

https://www.microsoft.com/Products/Games/FSInsider/developers/Pages/GlobalTerrain.aspx

 

 

I am by no menas taking side with mpdungas, but i have to correct you on 1 thing.

 

MS: FSX isnt newer than DCS. since it was released  originally in 2008, with a more mainstream download specific for Europe and NA in 2009. While elemtnes of the engien date back to the LOCk ON days, it is not the same thing. just like FSX  isnt the same thing as MS FS 2004 or earlier.  ANyways the current build using direct X 11 rendering, looks  way better than FSX. even the old DX9 DCS looked much nicer than FSX from 2006.

 

having both games,FSX runs horribly on new hardware, and a times its better to just restart FSX entirely instead of loading up another flight due to all the lagging. it never ran that good even on older generation hardware. FSX is good if your into civilian flight sims. not combat flight sims. I know and have downloaded somepayware military aicraft with "usable weapons" but have very primitive physics, since its essentially a mod built into  a civilian flight engine.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Kev2go

[Azure Lion]

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

 

I am by no menas taking side with mpdungas, but i have to correct you on 1 thing.

 

MS: FSX isnt newer than DCS. since it was released  originally in 2008, with a more mainstream download specific for Europe and NA in 2009. While elemtnes of the engien date back to the LOCk ON days, it is not the same thing. just like FSX  isnt the same thing as MS FS 2004 or earlier.  ANyways the current build using direct X 11 rendering, looks  way better than FSX. even the old DX9 DCS looked much nicer than FSX from 2006.

 

having both games,FSX runs horribly on new hardware, and a times its better to just restart FSX entirely instead of loading up another flight due to all the lagging. it never ran that good even on older generation hardware. FSX is good if your into civilian flight sims. not combat flight sims. I know and have downloaded somepayware military aicraft with "usable weapons" but have very primitive physics, since its essentially a mod built into  a civilian flight engine.

 

sorry, I meant, "... and newer versions of MS:FS" i.e. 2012 and 2016. Sometimes my brain moves faster than my hands...

 

In fact, it just happened again, just smashed my hand between my keyboard and my face. Think I'll go take a nap. 

Edited July 17, 2016 by Azure Lion

[Homer]

I think this discussion has reached the point of exhaustion and slowing encroaching upon butthurt territory.  Post your closing comments (<> shots) before I shut down this thread later today.

[Bond_Villian]

IL2 has nice graphics, it has tanks and planes and big maps, so now im going over to the IL2 BOS forums to demand ;

*Suitability as a training software for military clients (if Esim can do it, so can everybody else)

*High fidelity interiors

*More than a hundred new vehicles

*A sandbox mission editor and map editor

*Complex armour value and penetration models

*Playable infantry and weapons teams

*Regiment + (?)  sized forces command-able and playable

*The ability to give complex routes and orders with associated AI behaviours for given tactics

*etc

 

Edited July 18, 2016 by Bond_Villian

[Grenny]

2 hours ago, Homer said:

I think this discussion has reached the point of exhaustion and slowing encroaching upon butthurt territory.  Post your closing comments (<> shots) before I shut down this thread later today.

Amen!

[Marko]

As others have stated i too would choose substance over flashy graphics.

The reality is were a niche market with a devoted but limited user base

With out the military contracts there would be no SB.

So of course esim have to make sure there wishes/requirements are catered for.

I wish esim had the players numbers that some other titles have,

That way they could justify investing considerable amounts of money on a new engine more research dedicated server etc 

As fof me I just accept there doing there best.

 I will continue to make recommendations its just a bit of harmless fun for me any way

but lets not forget year on year (or two years) it gets better how many ten year plus sims can are still being supported never mind updated.

 

 

Edited July 18, 2016 by Marko

[daskal]

Graphics of SB have come a long way and I think they are fine and get the job done. With 4.0 we get hopefully somewhat neater particle effects, new terrain will be there after a while as well, so things look promising. 3 things I hope to see sometime in the future are:

 

- Secondary light sources (headlights, lamps, burning fire casting light etc)

- Tracks & Wheels should leave mark on the ground (even if its only "temporary" & visual representation only & does not alter the actual terrain) 

- Updated Vegetation / Forest that would affect mobility as well (forests in SB could use a redesign - more trees / be able to increase density & vegetation. Currently going through forests isn't that big of a deal unless you clutter it with rocks or some boggy ground)

 

Edited July 18, 2016 by daskal

[Toastman]

It strikes me after reading this thread that Steal Beasts is coming to a dev crossroads in the near future , and that is a demand for 2 differing products , 1 ... the pro military training option with basic graphics , and 2 ... the consumer option , designed for DX 11 and above . This I realise would mean massive dev costs but it would be the only way of satisfying both requirements .

 

..... go easy on me Ssnake , its just me 2 cents opinion

 

Edited July 18, 2016 by Toastman

[Bond_Villian]

1 hour ago, Toastman said:

and 2 ... the consumer option

You could call it 'Steel Beasts 2' 

[Toastman]

8 minutes ago, Bond_Villian said:

You could call it 'Steel Beasts 2' 

 

Yes , it would also have a dynamic campaign option , crew management etc ...