ETA on terrain patch?

[delta6]

Sounds good...I can do that..Thank you..

[Bond_Villian]

7 hours ago, delta6 said:

I need to know what the price will be for the upgrade...Not trying to be rude.but on a fixed income I must plan ahead...

https://www.esimgames.com/?page_id=1530

[Ssnake]

9 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

Typical past experience is about $40, i think

It'll be less than that since we failed to deliver the new terrain to version 4.0 as initially promised.

 

The price will be a bit variable though depending on whether you go with the pure download option, or if you order the bundle with physical media (such as the terrain installer and the printed manual). As soon as we have settled on our options, we'll take preorders. I had hoped to be at this point two weeks ago, admittedly.

[stormrider_sp]

On 4/30/2019 at 11:16 AM, Ssnake said:

It'll be less than that since we failed to deliver the new terrain to version 4.0 as initially promised.

 

The price will be a bit variable though depending on whether you go with the pure download option, or if you order the bundle with physical media (such as the terrain installer and the printed manual). As soon as we have settled on our options, we'll take preorders. I had hoped to be at this point two weeks ago, admittedly.

Wallet is ready!

[Lumituisku]

On 4/30/2019 at 1:16 PM, Ssnake said:

(such as the terrain installer)

Physical media / terrain installer?   Now I feel bit lost here. What is that thing? Or is it just like...  USB memory stick / dvd, instead of direct download from interned? 

 

And printed manual -  I am so waiting for that one! 

[Ssnake]

As mentioned on previous occasions, we'll split the installer into at least two separate ones; one for the Steel Beasts installation as you know it. And one for terrain data. The idea being that if we update Steel Beasts but the map data remain unchanged, we can cut the download size dramatically. Right now the map folder for version 4.1 contains about 15.3 GByte of data. People with broadband connection have no trouble with that, but there are people who cannot download packages of that size. Since we wanted to print a new batch of user manuals anyway (a lot has changed with respect to (terrain) data organization, the map editor, and how maps and scenarios gets combined) we figured that this would be the ideal opportunity to bundle this with physical media for at least the map installer.

Right now we're considering 16GByte USB thumb drives as the means of delivery.

 

"Download only" will of course remain an option.

[Kilo60]

On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 2:12 PM, Ssnake said:

As mentioned on previous occasions, we'll split the installer into at least two separate ones; one for the Steel Beasts installation as you know it. And one for terrain data. The idea being that if we update Steel Beasts but the map data remain unchanged, we can cut the download size dramatically. Right now the map folder for version 4.1 contains about 15.3 GByte of data. People with broadband connection have no trouble with that, but there are people who cannot download packages of that size. Since we wanted to print a new batch of user manuals anyway (a lot has changed with respect to (terrain) data organization, the map editor, and how maps and scenarios gets combined) we figured that this would be the ideal opportunity to bundle this with physical media for at least the map installer.

Right now we're considering 16GByte USB thumb drives as the means of delivery.

 

"Download only" will of course remain an option.

 

 

Sounds Great!

 

Will the release announcement be posted her in these forums?

[Ssnake]

Here, and on the eSimGames.com homepage, possibly also SimHQ, TankNet, ...

[Hedgehog]

On 5/1/2019 at 7:12 PM, Ssnake said:

As mentioned on previous occasions, we'll split the installer into at least two separate ones; one for the Steel Beasts installation as you know it. And one for terrain data. The idea being that if we update Steel Beasts but the map data remain unchanged, we can cut the download size dramatically. Right now the map folder for version 4.1 contains about 15.3 GByte of data. People with broadband connection have no trouble with that, but there are people who cannot download packages of that size. Since we wanted to print a new batch of user manuals anyway (a lot has changed with respect to (terrain) data organization, the map editor, and how maps and scenarios gets combined) we figured that this would be the ideal opportunity to bundle this with physical media for at least the map installer.

Right now we're considering 16GByte USB thumb drives as the means of delivery.

 

"Download only" will of course remain an option.

Cool you get a "Free" Thumb Drive.

Will it have SB Pro PE "Marketing" on it?

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, Hedgehog said:

Will it have SB Pro PE "Marketing" on it?

 

Yes, it will replicate a piece of track link - so you can't lose it.

[Hedgehog]

4 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Yes, it will replicate a piece of track link - so you can't lose it.

Shipping might be a tad expensive though. 😮

[squishall]

I don't post much stuff as I am more a reader than anything. Been with SB since the early days.

 

What is motivating me to speak now is the comment by inexus on page 14.

 

SB from the beginning has been a solid "SIMULATION" of armour systems, procedures, tactics, etc. It has not, and I hope never, been marketed as a "GAME". Graphics are low priority and hopefully will remain so. The fact that Ssnake and the staff have put effort into the infantry aspects of this SIM, in my opinion, is wasted time. I was perfectly happy with the little ugly sprites. I know there has been pressure from some of the people on this forum for shadows, and wiggly tracks, etc. but those are also unnecessary  eye candy that adds very little to the SB experience.

 

I don't want SB to turn into another ARMA. That "SIM" use to focus on simulating Infantry combat (very well I might add. I served in the infantry for 25 years) with planes, tanks, etc. being there strictly as fill ins and emersion addons. Now, because of pressure to have awesome graphics, tank and helicopter internals, etc., etc. it has become a do everything badly "GAME"

 

Please do not pressure SB to become a "GAME" as well.

[Ssnake]

Our primary commitment is training value. If I can have good looks along with it, I don't mind them. It's also a factor for acceptance among young soldiers. If the first impression of a simulations is "PS2 from my childhood", they associate that level of quality for the underlying simulation; that is not the case with SB Pro, but even then people who should know better still subconsciously make a connection between looks and simulation validity. So we cannot entirely ignore that aspect.

[squishall]

I here what you are saying. SBP is very deep. I just don't want to see it become shallow. I have confidence that it won't but I have seen other titles give in to the pressure of the FPS gamers as they are many. By the way I also play FPS games as I am sure many of the members on here do. Just want to keep them separate.

 

Anyways, I have shot my bolt; thanks for listening.

 

Cheers.

[Bond_Villian]

11 hours ago, squishall said:

The fact that Ssnake and the staff have put effort into the infantry aspects of this SIM, in my opinion, is wasted time.

Im not sure whether youre just refering to the graphics when you say that, but obviously infantry are an important part of the battlefield, and are highly relevant when "simulating" one. I wasnt playing SB when the troops were squigly sprites, but they look graphically ok to me, and i would be ok with 2d sprite dudes. Improving infantry behaviours and adding the ability to use some more of their primary weapon systems is certainly not a waste of time in my opinion.

[Captain_Colossus]

the infantry sprites were fine and functional except that they limited the behavior of the infantry: because they were sprites, their behavior was confined to pre-rendered, hand drawn animation cells. with polygon models, they can do so much more, not because they look better, but because a greater range of movements or behavior or types of infantry can be programmed without having to draw a bunch of animation frames (if you ever looked at the file for the original infantry, it looked like a film strip that defined a very limited range of behavior- which also must have been extremely tedious to hand draw even just a few frames like that).

 

graphics do matter, and not necessarily because they are nice to look at, but because if that weren't true, theoretically it should be possible to run a high fidelity simulation using vector or wireframe graphics or 16 bit color pyramids and blocks and terrain which have no perceivable differences in elevation change 10 or 50 meters away (think 1980s home computer representations of landscapes with a single tree planted on a flat plain at VGA resolution, your imagination filled in much of the blanks to give it a playable experience, which is why going back and playing those retro titles doesn't feel the same as they did back then as passable)- which limits the simulation because those graphics are limited in what they can represent. the astronauts who visited the moon reported the limited information they received from the environment because there is no atmosphere severely affected depth perception- what looked like a small ridge ten feet away could be a large ridge quite far off in the distance or vice versa, which is what older computer simulations looked like with more primitive graphics.

 

obviously there are trade-offs where more resources spent on one thing means less spent on another, and at the same time, completely neglecting one may affect the other. One of my most requested topics as far as graphics are concerned was more dust and smoke and larger smoke columns from burning material, which we have a better representation of than in 2006 with steel beasts 2.xx- and it doesn't just look much better, but affects the behavior of the user- it's possible now to orient your attention or movement in the direction of smoke where this was very difficult before. shadows likewise aren't necessarily dressing only, they affect depth perception, and moreover can obscure or conceal movements, but which appears to tax a lot of cpu resources to render in real time.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Captain_Colossus

[squishall]

Yes I was referring to the infantry graphics  not the way in which they operate on the battlefield. I am all for those types of improvements. I am all for graphic improvements that add SA to the battlefield. Perhaps my whole point could be summed up like this:

 

If Ssnake and the staff have to decide between improving the ballistic properties of "X" round or make the leaves on the trees move around or have bumble bees flying about..well you know which I would prefer.

 

Anyways, not about starting a big debate.

 

Back to the battlefield

 

DEAS GU CATH

[Captain_Colossus]

it's fine. i get what you mean. most users here would agree with you on priorities- that is why they are here and not somewhere else. and i don't think steel beasts looks all that bad for the entire experience. it looks good. many others here waited for a long time to see it progress incrementally, but no one would turn down graphics altogether, given a choice you would certainly not want to return to the graphics of the original steel beasts.

 

at the same time, i tend to get down in the weeds when it is suggested or stated plainly that they don't like graphics- which is not true of anyone. if a developer says something like that, there is some kind of agenda, or there is a conceit that becomes plain: it's likely because they don't have the resources to put into graphics, much the same way a non attractive girl will say that looks shouldn't matter and that you should be above that sort of thing- what that really is saying that she can't compete on an even playing field against more attractive females. and you might see it go the other way: where developers don't have the technical means or knowledge to develop a high fidelity computer game they may develop an action game and design it around multi-player, meaning there is no useful AI opponent, so what they do is cover up for some deficiency by allowing players provide their own opponents.

 

at the end of the day, people are this way: everyone prefers a ripe, fresh, delicious looking piece of fruit over something that looks mealy and not so good and mushy and this sort of thing. particularly western society with its supposedly egalitarian notions programs people to believe there is essentially no difference and that we all compete on a level playing field, which is not true at all, this is blatantly wrong. people will tend to choose things which are 'superficial'  such as good looking people, good looking food sources, or good looking computer games. we are wired that way.

 

from a simulation standpoint, the closer the software looks like the world it is attempting to simulate, the closer it is inferred the user experience will be, more information that looks like the real world makes us presume it is going to be realistic. but of course this facade can peel away quickly when it is discovered the gameplay elements are missing. the big studio FPS games like EA's medal of honor series tend to have almost no gameplay- they are more like interactive movies as far as i am concerned, it's moving a cursor around a move like script on rails. i get more game out of primitive arcade games from the 1970s and 1980s than those types of games. i don't get it, but some seem to like it. buti get what you're saying, my statement was more to clarify i didn't think that graphics improvements to steel beasts weren't just the eye dressing in all cases.

[Bond_Villian]

MEH

[Japo32]

One question...

 

I just "arrived" again after leaving the forums for the promised 4.X new terrain model because the patch was taking long.

Seems that we are near about to be released, but in one of the posts I heared about someone asking about the price of the update 4.1. 

Do we have to pay again if we own the 4.023 already? I hope not as it was promised in 4.0. But I have to say that I would pay if it would be a 5.0 version again with new features and better engine than dx9.0.

 

Thanks!

Edited May 24, 2019 by Japo32

[Red2112]

27 minutes ago, Japo32 said:

One question...

 

I just "arrived" again after leaving the forums for the promised 4.X new terrain model because the patch was taking long.

Seems that we are near about to be released, but in one of the posts I heared about someone asking about the price of the update 4.1. 

Do we have to pay again if we own the 4.023 already? I hope not as it was promised in 4.0. But I have to say that I would pay if it would be a 5.0 version again with new features and better engine than dx9.0.

 

Thanks!

Just one page behind Japo...

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11302-eta-on-terrain-patch/page/14/

 

and (older)...

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/12559-release-roadmap-for-pe-41/?tab=comments#comment-187810

 

Yes, there will be a "smaller" price fee but there will be new things with it too.

 

Saludos!

 

[Bond_Villian]

The update isnt free, but i believe it will be cheaper than usual on account of the delay with the terrain related improvements. The update seems substantial from what i can tell. New terrain features, updates to scenario and map editors, new vehicles, giraffes etc.

Edited May 24, 2019 by Bond_Villian

[Ssnake]

NO giraffes.

[Bond_Villian]

[Japo32]

1 hour ago, Red2112 said:

Yes, there will be a "smaller" price fee but there will be new things with it too.

 

 

I don't like this at all. Of course I understand that this is a business and people don't work for free, but that patch was promised as to be included in 4.x without any more money added.

 

 

or here also at the beggining of the videos with new terrain bumpy model in 2016.

 

Also we had to be terrible patience as we had to wait for some years to have it, as it was told to us that the devs couldn't work in it because they had professional contractors first to take care.

I understand that there are some additions to it, and that is fine, but in my case never asked for them. With the terrain model would be enough for me (of course any improve in frame rate shouldn't never be charged).

Also is totally unfair if at the end one person that comes from 2.0 or 3.0 only pays 40$ to upgrade the version to 4.1. I had to pay 40$ + XX$ for the same 4.1 version (not a 5.0). Until when we are going to have free updates of this "new" product? as maybe soon we could have the 5.0 and be charged again? (this is a 4.1x version. Not new 5.0)

Again, I repeat that I understand that devs don't work for free and was a big ammount of work done, but it was promised for free as features of 4.X, and pay for those "free" features plus a rework of plants and framerate, don't make me happy at all.

As I said, I would pay 40$ happily if it would be a dramatic change from the very old dx9.0 to dx11-12 or Vulkan, but I don't desire new tanks added, and of course I think we never should be charged for frame improvements (really 4.023 goes really bad in some situations with good computers.. and that is not our fault).

 

I had to say it. 

Thanks.

Edited May 24, 2019 by Japo32