Can FOV be increased?

[Japo32]

Here some examples how I see it: 

VEC M1 Gunner:

https://gyazo.com/9dcd989e4c64b6afd5dacf2e59322c7c

Pizarro Gunner:

https://gyazo.com/7bae05a52a825be5af29861accf93b2d

T72 Commander

https://gyazo.com/01d15da81bfbe06e8518cd8901eaae12

 

 

as said.. no problem in sight views.

[CalAB]

It seems like a case of consumer vs military need. 
 

eSim produces its software firstly for its contracted customer (military).  As a civilian consumer I have access to hardware at my discretion that obviously exceeds the capability of the current version of the personal edition. 
 

This tells me that the primary customer for eSim isn’t using the latest versions of monitors, computers and graphics cards because the aren’t budgeted for it. 
 

This software is used by the primary customer as an inexpensive training aid. I use it for entertainment. 
 

I can only make an assumption that version five will parallel projected upgrades for that customer. 
 

Tankers don’t do their job from a chair and a desk (as we all know). So really, how “real” does the sim need to be in the visual aspect. 

[thewood]

9 minutes ago, CalAB said:

It seems like a case of consumer vs military need. 
 

eSim produces its software firstly for its contracted customer (military).  As a civilian consumer I have access to hardware at my discretion that obviously exceeds the capability of the current version of the personal edition. 
 

This tells me that the primary customer for eSim isn’t using the latest versions of monitors, computers and graphics cards because the aren’t budgeted for it. 
 

This software is used by the primary customer as an inexpensive training aid. I use it for entertainment. 
 

I can only make an assumption that version five will parallel projected upgrades for that customer. 
 

Tankers don’t do their job from a chair and a desk (as we all know). So really, how “real” does the sim need to be in the visual aspect. 

I'm surprised that with over 600 posts and 15 years on the forum, you just came to this conclusion.  This isn't a secret and has been discussed openly by both the devs and the community over the years.  Sometimes at great length.   This is something everyone of us players has had to come to grips with since the focus shifted a long time ago.  People who can't deal with it, don't.  People who can deal with it, do.

 

While I too get frustrated sometimes with the pace of change due to technical debt on the military side, I still thank the gaming Gods that Ssnake doesn't just up and pull back from the gamer market.  There really isn't anything else like SB.  To make this self-funding on the gamer side of the market would require a lot of time/money and a much more narrowly focused scope (cough...GHPC...cough).

[Ssnake]

16 minutes ago, CalAB said:

It seems like a case of consumer vs military need. 
 

eSim produces its software firstly for its contracted customer (military).  ... the primary customer for eSim isn’t using the latest versions of monitors, computers and graphics cards because the aren’t budgeted for it. 

 

Oh, sometimes they do shell out for RTX 3090s and 8K widescreens, but that is done for some simulators and not classrooms on a broad scale, at least not yet, and with a dozen different armies they don't upgrade their hardware in synchronized cycles; heck, until recently some isolated systems were still on Windows 7.

 

 

Anyway, we're selling the Personal Edition to consumers, so they get to have a say in how we're doing our work.

 

We could skip all the hassle and focus exclusively on the military market; it's probably what one of those hyperintelligent, booksmart, but otherwise clueless Harvard Business School MBAs might recommend. I reject that logic for a range of reasons, chiefly because that we need the regular players' perspective as a sanity check, for finding bugs that would otherwise not be reported to us, and as an incentive to never stop optimizing the UI for ease of use.

 

Inevitably this introduces a plane of friction where the two worlds meet. We have to compromise here, and I'm explaining the logic behind our decisions, but that doesn't change the fact that I can't force customers to accept my explanations, or to ditch the attitude to "demand everything while being unwilling to pay for anything."

(Note that I as a consumers fall into that perspective from time to time as well, so it's not intended as a disparaging comment to anyone, be it in general or specifically in this thread.)

 

In short, it's legitimate to bring up the perspective of the consumer/gamer. It's legitimate to point out that projects started without the baggage of having to keep legacy code running look nicer and are better suited for modern gaming computers. I have to balance the needs of two worlds here. I know that I cannot compete with teams that focus exclusively on the gamer market, so Steel Beasts has to convince on the merits of tactical depth, and that it can bring systems into perspective that aren't widely popular. Few (if any) people will buy Steel Beasts because "it has the Arrows remote weapon station!". But then again, nobody else does, and we have almost a dozen different RWSs for those who want to compare. Nobody has bothered to try and depict mechanized infantry in detail before (acknowledging that even now SB Pro can still cover only a part of it), or paid much attention to what Engineers do. The downside of this is, it's increasing overall complexity which is not helping with the consumer/gamer appeal. But you can't have realism and tactical depth without complexity. So we have to find a balance, and not everybody will be happy 100% of the time.

[Ssnake]

Sorry, I'm going to hide a few posts now. This bickering helps nobody. If you insist that the world needs to read what you two seem to have to solve in private, send an email to the webmaster of this site.