Jump to content
mpdugas

Suggestion for graphics of SB Pro 4.1

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mpdugas said:

 

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.

I only can jugde these flight sims from the videos i found. And at nap of the earth the ground does not seem like any improvement vs SB.

That WWII looks nice though...how are mapsizes/unit count there.

 

The AI in BMS can organize BN size manouvre? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Azure Lion said:

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.

 

I guess it depends when you served, or where you were posted, because for training it seems the AF do have the necessary computing power to run a modern simulation.

 

 

National Guard pilots running DTS A10C ( the Military version of the consumer DCS A10C)

 

1396130849536.jpg

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

I guess it depends when you served, or where you were posted, because for training it seems the AF do have the necessary computing power to run a modern simulation.

 

National Guard pilots running DTS A10C ( the Military version of the consumer DCS A10C)

 

 

Sure and its flight sim.

 

The burden for drawing clouds and random stuff on the ground is a lot less that what people are asking for 80 x 80km of built up area (to use an extreme case).

 

Can infantry enter buildings in DCS, do you need to worry about vehicles interacting with trees, etc. ?

Share this post


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

 

Sure and its flight sim.

 

The burden for drawing clouds and random stuff on the ground is a lot less that what people are asking for 80 x 80km of built up area (to use an extreme case).

 

Can infantry enter buildings in DCS, do you need to worry about vehicles interacting with trees, etc. ?

 

 

no but those 2 criteria are met in ARMA series, or its Military contract counterpart Virtual Battle Space 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


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

Yes I know VBS, and it fails on the "simulation" front.

 

very nice elaboration of how it "fails' on your part, Very rich and compelling argument.

 

anyways,  its Infantry based  simulator, with vehicles added for support. 

You  do  realize  its not the same type of simulation as SB, its not used for training tank gunners. By your logic  you  could just as  very well  say Sb fails on simulation because you cant play as infantry, Infantry have wrong weaponry for time period,  or because path finding is flawed.

 

 However I am only using as an example where similarities in function overlap. IE collision with object,s and Infantry in buildings.

 

VBS dont think it fails at all at SImulation, not for its intended use.  It must be doing good enough on that front  otherwise US army an other Nato armies wouldn't have purchased copies of it, Or  let alone decided to upgrade to the newer VBS 3 release.

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I didn't want to go way off topic but in brief:

 

1. Very poor logistics modelling

2. Very high scripting bill - individuals needs a lot of training to control a Company as a single player (as opposed to SB and other products).

3. Poor networking.

4. As mentioned vehicle modelling poor.

5. SB3 needs major hardware upgrades.

 

I do realise its not the same as SB, and that VBS is not used to train tank gunners (we don't use SB for that primarily either).

 

I've used both products for about 7 years now, professionally and SB is a better product to train combined arms commanders (at least in our opinion) from the E-8 to O-4 / O-5 level.

 

You of course are entitled to your opinion.

 

Edited by Gibsonm
Added NATO standard ranks to make it easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rotareneg said:

 

Yes, because US military expenditures are always a rock solid indicator of quality and efficent use of funds.

 

Well given that they have also just moved to WARSIM from JCATS there are a lot of shiny toys in the US cupboard.

 

But as an Internet argument can never be "won" that's enough from me.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Rotareneg said:

 

Yes, because US military expenditures are always a rock solid indicator of quality and efficent use of funds.

 

 

well thats your opinion, 1st off winning any military contract, is no small feat, especially true when you have competition.

 

 Second, i think f35 is necessary Strike Fighter aircraft for tomorrows wars not todays. Its not for everyone. Not every nations needs top the line stuff, nor can they afford it, but its a plane for the US AF first and foremost. Then can afford it. The F22 raptor which is primarily a Air superiority platform has very limited A2G capabilties. the F35 will fill the latter. F35 will compliment F22s in a similar way  F16s  were made to compliment F15's

 

But people seem to forget that newer technology is always more expensive. compare prices each generation of aircraft throught history.  Why bother upgrading or advancing technology at all? the price of war always goes up with newer tech, simple as that. There have always been naysayers every time a new project was undertaken. Those  negative opinions of earlier projects just weren't as vocal , because the internet didnt exist. ,Everything is becoming more electronics & information based. Some people cant help but live in the past. 

 

57 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

Well I didn't want to go way off topic but in brief:

 

1. Very poor logistics modelling

2. Very high scripting bill - individuals needs a lot of training to control a Company as a single player (as opposed to SB and other products).

3. Poor networking.

4. As mentioned vehicle modelling poor.

5. SB3 needs major hardware upgrades.

 

I do realise its not the same as SB, and that VBS is not used to train tank gunners (we don't use SB for that primarily either).

 

I've used both products for about 7 years now, professionally and SB is a better product to train combined arms commanders (at least in our opinion) from the E-8 to O-4 / O-5 level.

 

You of course are entitled to your opinion.

 

 

  your right its a differentiating opinion. and VBS3 whole point was to update its graphics and physics. and even then Its not a new product. Its based on the engine used in ARMA 2 OA. So as far as hardware goes its still less demanding than shiny new gfx that arma 3 offers, Otherwise the army would need even newer higher end hardware to run it . But most consumers dont need that advanced of a product ( at least not for an over the top price), hence the watered down "ARMA". but some enthusiast will opt for the more advanced professional products.

 

almost like choosing Adobe premier Pro for private non profit projects over pinnacle studio.

 

from my  view i think VBS is fairly solid . From my point of view ( having actually used VBS2) wish the consumer based ARMA  was more advanced & fleshed out like like VBS, and i have some ex servicemen who ive gamed with who too noted that save for the graphics, VBS offered more than ARMA in terms of Map size & content, and better suited for undertaking larger more complex operations.

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


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

 

Well given that they have also just moved to WARSIM from JCATS there are a lot of shiny toys in the US cupboard.

 

But as an Internet argument can never be "won" that's enough from me.

 

 

your right on that part.

 at least not when it comes to opinion and personal tastes, although that applies to a RL conversation too.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

From my point of view ( having actually used VBS2) wish the consumer based ARMA  was more advanced & fleshed out like like VBS, and i have some ex servicemen who ive gamed with who too noted that save for the graphics, VBS offered more than ARMA in terms of Map size & content, and better suited for undertaking larger more complex operations.

 

Well I've used VBS2 and 3 and its still poor for logisitics and AAR tools.

 

No repair capability, no resupply, no reports of what round hit who when (compared with say the SB reports). 

 

Atached is a US review.

 

US comparison.ppt

 

Obviously both products have moved on from 2.654 in SB's case, but the overall "feel" remains the same. No doubt SB 4.x will change things again.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


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

 

Well I've used VBS2 and 3 and its still poor for logisitics and AAR tools.

 

No repair capability, no resupply, no reports of what round hit who when (compared with cay the SB reports). 

 

Atached is a US review.

 

Obviously both products have moved on from 2.654 in SB's case, but the overall "feel" remains the same. No doubt SB 4 will change things again.

US comparison.ppt

 

No,  never said it was ideally suited on  Armored based simulation . ( hency my earlier posts, how both SIMS are  used for 2 different reasons) but for infantry focused simulation with inclusion of elements of combined arms. , I honestly cant consider SB better in that regard,  since you cant  directly control individual infantry. IN VBS 1 person  could, but isnt really intended to control entire AI but rather simulation were individual solider fulfill thier squad - platoon infantry roles.

 

 but i think we can agree SB is not the right simulator for infantry based virtual training, and this is is what VBS really offers over it.

 

Especially with something like this http://www.intelligent.net/news/dismounted-soldier-training-system-0812

 

Right now i dont think there is any sim that does everything well. which is why in most cases western militaries don't rely on a single sim, and operate multiple simulation software.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

No,  never said it was ideally suited on  Armored based simulation . ( hency my earlier posts, how both SIMS are  used for 2 different reasons) but for infantry focused simulation with inclusion of elements of combined arms. , I honestly cant consider SB better,  since you cant  directly control individual infantry. IN VBS 1 person  could, but isnt really intended to control entire AI but rather simulation were individual solider fulfill thier squad - platoon infantry roles.

 

 but i think we can agree SB is not the right sim for infantry based virtual training, and this is is what VBS really offers over it.

 

 

Well if I have one student to assess as a potential Company Commander I can give him three other Trainees to be Platoon Commander's and SB and they make a fair go of it. I can give the same four people a light Infantry Company in VBS and its a mess.

 

One of the key outcomes of using simulation is to have repeatable activities with low overheads.

 

With SB I can run those four people through four different Company activities with a different Company Commander each time.

 

If I need to get 100 other guys in to each fill a VBS slot, I might as well do it "live" and I'll only get one done - if that.

 

I'm assessing the Trainees on his orders, his Tactics and his control, not whether the No.3 rifleman in X Section is taking the correct sight picture. :)

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


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

 

Well if I have one student to assess as a potential Company Commander I can give him three other Trainees to be Platoon Commander's and SB and they make a fair go of it. I can give the same four people a light Infantry Company in VBS and its a mess.

 

One of the key outcomes of using simulation is to have repeatable activities with low overheads.

 

With SB I can run those four people through four different Company activities with a different Company Commander each time.

 

If I need to get 100 other guys in to each fill a VBS slot, I might as well do it "live" and I'll only get one done - if that.

 

well what about Enlisted squad - platoon level training? as you can see youve got many people on desktop machine on VBS, not 4 individuals. 

 

even with a larger group So its still would be much cheaper than a live excercise. becasue then you need to find nessary terrain for your exercise, for the desired scenario, and spend fuel on transports etc, and if youve got air support Dropping live ordinance on "pretend"  or "mock up" targets also costs money.  1 laser guided gbu12 for EG, and thats 21K down the toilet. not to mention maintenance needed to be conducted afterwords on vehicles used. 

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lt DeFault said:

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. :)

 

You misrepresent my point altogether; there are many complex simulations that pre-date SB Pro in genesis, simulations whose present graphical evolution are far better, based on much older code than that of SB Pro.  eSim has been talking about this new upgrade for quite some time, and I actually did believe that it would start to break ground in the area of graphics; it is a tepid, lackluster effort.

 

I chose my examples to illustrate that, even with very old software, some really outstanding results can be obtained.  How can flight simulators be better at this than a dedicated ground simulation?  How did they accomplish so much with software tools that are older than eSim's?  So yes, in spite of what you say in their defense, I think eSims needs to address the performance of their contemporaries, if, as Nils says, they want to grow.  That is what makes for healthy competition, not the 'President-knows-best' approach that is advocated.  Those contemporaries did not sacrifice accuracy-of-simulation for graphics embellishments at all.  It is sophistry to suggest that there is a forced choice to be made between compelling graphics and technical precision.

 

Go back, look at my prior posts on the same subject.  I have always been unfailingly polite and positive in my approach, even though others have chosen the well-worn path of vitriolic fanbois to refute my points.  I did not just make requests; I made concrete, tangible suggestions and have outlined positive and realistic ways to accomplish this very task.

 

There is a substantial difference between a reason and an excuse.  There are no valid reasons why SB Pro cannot exceed its contemporaries.

 

I have my own opinion, and that is all I purport to represent:

 

SB Pro lacks emotional content.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

well what about Enlisted squad - platoon level training? as you can see youve got many people on desktop machine on VBS, not 4 individuals. 

 

even with a larger group So its still would be much cheaper than a live excercise. becasue then you need to find nessary terrain for your exercise, for the desired scenario, and spend fuel on transports etc, and if youve got air support Dropping live ordinance on "pretend" targets also costs money.  1 laser guided gbu, and thats 21K down the toilet.

 

 

That's done in unit.

 

Most "rank and file" learn much better by "doing" - so a Platoon carrying out drills learns and retains knowledge much better than the same Platoon sitting in a classroom "playing" drills.

 

Our aim is to run the key appointments though the training, learn the lessons and then do it live.

 

I think I'd rather attack a hill once or twice properly than seven times while the Company Commander is depriefed on his "learning outcomes".

 

But hey grab some load carrying equipment and a pack and do another 500m of fire and movement if that's what you want to do. ;)

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some immersive qualities could be added without changing out the graphics engine. You might have found computer games from years ago quite fun and immersive

although the graphics were a bit more primitive.

 

However, the things which could be added might be more game like or rejected by eSim's professional customers (or eSim team members themselves may not want to feel

comfortable with it)

 

For instance: computer crews bailing out in flames and being cut down my machine guns and whatnot. Some computer games and simulations have this kind of effect, some people might find that immersive and entertaining, some might not, I doubt many military organizations would actually want that. Seems like crossing the line into entertainment than a training tool.

 

Other things might be useful and be more immersive:

 

Expanding the draw distance of shadows cast by vehicles and objects. Real time destructible and partial destruction of buildings and objects. Heat blur effects (in gun sights, in desert environments, hot engine decks). Visible wind effects on trees, grass, bushes.

 

Other things simply more immersive without any training value:

 

Unbuttoned crews visibly bouncing around a little bit depending on the roughness of the ride.

 

Little touches can always be added rather than a whole new terrain generation system and sometimes do a lot more- you could have a very realistic presentation looks wise with a new terrain system, but the presentation can feel sterile nonetheless. On the other hand a well polished engine which might be a generation behind in graphics probably in my view delivers a better experience in line with performance than a impressive looking but sterile environment.

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


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

 

That's done in unit.

 

Most "rank and file" learn much better by "doing" - so a Platoon carrying out drills learns and retains knowledge much better than the same Platoon sitting in a classroom "playing" drills.

 

Our aim is to run the key appointments though the training, learn the lessons and then do it live.

 

I think I'd rather attack a hill once or twice properly than seven times while the Compnay Commander is depriefed on his "learning outcomes".

 

But hey grab some load carrying equipment and a pack and do another 500m of fire and movement if that's what you want to do. ;)

 

well i dont see the point of the argument as Both software are used for different things, and are already paid for by respective miltiaries might as well put them to use if you have them both.

 

Its for this exact reason SIms exist to practice skills, before the Live fire training excerices come up. again  an advanced virtual infantry trainer like DSTS is already paid for. clearly the policy makers who aprove of such have a different idea of how things should be run, and i have to agree it saves cost in the long run. Its  too expensive to run endless live fire exercises.

 

VBS will only be truly redundant when SB includes playable infantry and crewable air assets, and when all  members arms branches will be able to run an  virtual exercise where they can support each other in the same sim.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Grenny said:

The AI in BMS can organize BN size manouvre? 

The entry price for BMS 4.33 is a copy of Falcon, 150 mb, installed on your machine.  At GoG, that is available for around $10.  No dongle required.

 

Once that is complete, you can install the BMS mod and play the Korean, Balkans or Israel campaigns.

 

The dynamic campaign simulates an active war going on in the theater of your choosing.  Trying flying north into Korea and see how many AI units react to your presence.

 

For a clear picture, watch the BMS video I offered to it's completion; it will give you an excellent idea of what an active campaign is like, as opposed to a player-created scenario.

Edited by mpdugas
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mpdugas said:

The entry price for BMS 4.33 is a copy of Falcon, 150 mb, installed on your machine.  At GoG, that is available for around $10.  No dongle required.

 

Once that is complete, you can install the BMS mod and play the Korean, Balkans or Israel campaigns.

 

The dynamic campaign simulates an active war going on in the theater of your choosing.  Trying flying north into Korea and see how many AI units react to your presence.

 

For a clear picture, watch the BMS video I offered to it's completion; it will give you an excellent idea of what an active campaign is like, as opposed to a player-created scenario.

 

BMS is different category of simulation. Its air Combat sim, focused on the F16 series. It is not a Armored Sim or Infantry game. ulitamtely its been modded by public community to be modern. The original developers haven't supported thier product for ages.

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

BMS is different category of simulation. Its air Combat sim, focused on the F16 series. It is not a Armored Sim or Infantry game. ulitamtely its been modded by public community to be modern. The original developers haven't supported thier product for ages.

 

 

I think that misses the point somewhat.

 

IL-2 is also in a different category, as is DCSW.  It matters not at all.

They are complex simulations built on old software with remarkably good simulation fidelity AND high-quality graphics presentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I like an internet argument like every other person. From my perspective there are a lot of apples and oranges flying around. It's been one of my principles in the past 17 years to never defend the indefensible. That said, these are our development priorities:

 

  1. Stability. SB Pro isn't supposed to crash, or to behave unpredictable.
  2. Training value. If in doubt, work on features that enhance the value of SB Pro in (military) training.
  3. Tactical depth. SB pro is way more than a pure tank simulation.
  4. Realism of procedures (where demanded by our customers), and realism of results.
  5. Not looking terrible. SB pro should never look so horrible that people would rather not use it.
  6. Looking good. All other things being equal, a better looking SB Pro is a better product.

So, that's what we're trying to do, these are our priorities, sorted in order of decreasing importance. There's probably a hundred more points on that list, so don't take the fact that "good looks" are "only #6" wrong. Being in the top ten is already significant. But there are (only) five other items which we deem more critical to the long-term success of SB Pro. We've been around for 17 years, I want us to be around for another 20 years. That's my planning horizon. SB Pro is my life project. I don't have a plan B. And the priorities above, they are our mission statement. You may disagree with the sorting order, but this is what you can expect from us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

I guess it depends when you served, or where you were posted, because for training it seems the AF do have the necessary computing power to run a modern simulation.

 

 

National Guard pilots running DTS A10C ( the Military version of the consumer DCS A10C)

 

1396130849536.jpg

They are using cheap joysticks -  Thrustmaster T-Flight HOTAS: too few buttons, no separate left and right thrust etc... :) DCS can be configured to work with this ( i used same config for 2 years ) but when i switched to X55 i felt reborn :D

 

P.S> dont even try to use T-FLIGHt with SB - it has so bad sensitivity curve that you will in 95% of cases either lead too fast in front of target or you will drag behind...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×