Jump to content
Mav

Problem with Route Speed

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

When making a scenario, it seems like there is no difference between speeds in fx. sand for Bradlys, and no difference between FAST and TOP SPEED for M1A1's. Attached is an easy .sce to show the issue.

Snap8.jpg

Snap9.jpg

SpeedTest73Easting.sce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soft ground limits the max speed.

 

So of TOP speed is 50km/h and fast speed its 40km/h. Now if soft ground  limits maximum speed to can achieve to 35 km/h... Fast speed will be 35km/h...and guess what, TOP speed is caped at 35 km/h too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh thanks Grenny, thank explains the M1A1.

 

But the Bradleys….. All states same speed?

 

Ahh got it now.....

 

Would be nice if one could punch in a speed/hour for AI to keep on fx. March routes.

Edited by Mav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mav said:

Ahhh thanks Grenny, thank explains the M1A1.

 

But the Bradleys….. All states same speed?

 

Ahh got it now.....

 

Would be nice if one could punch in a speed/hour for AI to keep on fx. March routes.

 

 

Believe it or not in DCS there is a cruise control setting to cap the speed. In a primarily flight simulation..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, for what Steel Beasts was originally designed, this would have been a terrible and needless complication of the user interface.

 

Things have changed in the meantime, so the next version of Steel Beasts will change with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Believe it or not, for what Steel Beasts was originally designed, this would have been a terrible and needless complication of the user interface.

 

Things have changed in the meantime, so the next version of Steel Beasts will change with it.

 

In all truth, DCS does not model armor correctly. Sometimes uses hit point system. Is it a classified thing to know that a tank driver has the option or the main package ability to use a cruise control horn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not conflate too many issues. The only relevant question is whether a user interface that offers to toggle three speed levels by pressing a single key is easier to work with than a UI that allows to set specific speed levels.

 

Answer: It depends.

 

Originally Steel Beasts modeled pretty much only tracked vehicles with similar top speeds, so a simple toggle to go slow, fast, or top speed seemed to cover all practical requirements. We later added the built-in feature that all vehicles on a "March" route (with formation Column) would maintain a fixed 30km/h speed so that platoons of different vehicle types would not attempt to overtake each other while you were conducting a formation level road mach.

Later on we added more and more wheeled vehicles at which point the velocity spread became so large that the introduction of absolute speed levels would offer the potential to reduce user annoyance, at the price of making the user interface more complex (and as such, Steel Beasts one extra step harder to learn).

 

Growing complexity in the user interface is a serious problem. First of all, it is my personal opinion that a simple user interface that provides roughly the same functionality as a complex one, is usually better. Second, we've already gone way beyond the 102 key limit of a classic keyboard as far as hotkeys are concerned, and we're already applying hotkeys in a context-sensitive manner to reduce overall complexity (rather than, say, Panzer Elite where you could issue EVERY command form EVERY position, requiring to memorize far more different hotkey combinations for a similar functionality). Finally, our military customers (remember, the guys that heavily subsidize the price of your SB Pro PE copy) want to keep the amount of time that they spend on training their soldiers how to use Steel Beasts at an absolute minimum; for them, SB Pro PE is a tool to train something else. Training the use of a simulation is only justified if the training value of using it later on significantly exceeds that initial investment; otherwise the effort would be misdirected. At the same time, they task us to load the application with more and more functionality which inevitably mutates an originally very lean UI with minimal HUD elements into a really complex piece of software that requires three full days to teach the armies' instructors at least the very basics that they need to begin to explore all the possibilities that our software offers (and they are then the ones to teach the individual soldiers).

 

DCS isn't burdened with any of these factors; they are mainly adding tanks to an already established UI that had probably ten or more thrust levels for the (jet) engine power output to begin with, so the target group (flight simmers who want to roll in the mud for a brief stint) will not find it much different from what they are already accustomed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ssnake said:

they are mainly adding tanks to an already established UI that had probably ten or more thrust levels for the (jet) engine power output to begin with, so the target group (flight simmers who want to roll in the mud for a brief stint) will not find it much different from what they are already accustomed to.

 

I do have combined arms and afaik they did model the tanks from scratch. I am not saying it is the armor simulation proper, but I am saying that there should be an option for non military users to be able to toggle cruise control if they so wish to sort of 'cheat' or play unrealistically (which you still haven't answered if a tank has cruise control in real life, without going into detail, a simple yes or no would suffice). And if it is there, it should be optional to all people. 

 

In DCS, we have compute firing solution, platform shake. These are options. the keyword is options

Share this post


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

 

I do have combined arms and afaik they did model the tanks from scratch. I am not saying it is the armor simulation proper, but I am saying that there should be an option for non military users to be able to toggle cruise control if they so wish to sort of 'cheat' or play unrealistically (which you still haven't answered if a tank has cruise control in real life, without going into detail, a simple yes or no would suffice). And if it is there, it should be optional to all people. 

 

In DCS, we have compute firing solution, platform shake. These are options. the keyword is options

Except of course the people who pay for most of eSim's development work (i.e. various militaries) don't.

 

This is primarily a military training tool that just happens to have a version available for commercial use.

 

DCS AFAIK isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wildbillkelsoe said:

 

I do have combined arms and afaik they did model the tanks from scratch. I am not saying it is the armor simulation proper, but I am saying that there should be an option for non military users to be able to toggle cruise control if they so wish to sort of 'cheat' or play unrealistically (which you still haven't answered if a tank has cruise control in real life, without going into detail, a simple yes or no would suffice). And if it is there, it should be optional to all people. 

 

 

The short answer is "no", the vast majority of armored vehicles lack anything resembling a "cruise control", although on some vehicles (M48/M60 and others) you could use the hand throttle to accomplish the same effect, most Tank Commanders I knew considered that bad form. If you need consistent speed on a route, use a single route with "march" settings and space out individual units so they don't bunch up as they join it. 

 

Attempting to create a broad movement/assault with dissimilar units will invariably lead to some units arriving faster than others, and this is reflected in reality (e.g. tanks tend to move faster than IFVs in the attack).  As a commander, it's your responsibility to synchronize the movement of your forces by understanding and taking into account their varying speeds and capabilities.  There is no "easy" way.

Edited by MAJ_Fubar
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can use "embark if ..." so that if unit 1 has reached waypoint X it will proceed if the other units had reached waypoints X, Y or Z (the corresponding location on their respective routes) but I wouldn't necessarily call this "easy" (esp. if there are lots of waypoints and as a result a lot of complicated embark if statements.

 

You could simplify it a bit by having regions and saying unit X will embark if there are for example > 8 tanks in Region 1. If its a Soviet Tank Company with 10 vehicles that means 80% have arrived so press on and accept 2 stragglers.

Share this post


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

Except of course the people who pay for most of eSim's development work (i.e. various militaries) don't.

 

This is primarily a military training tool that just happens to have a version available for commercial use.

 

DCS AFAIK isn't.

 

DCS is not a military training tool? Google DCS A-10C and you'll find plenty of AFROTC classrooms with folks wearing forest camo, lots of joysticks and their interface. You have been misinformed. DCS has contracts with armies just like eSim has contracts with GOs. 

 

Since this PE is targeted at the niche and not the GO people, these requests are in order even if the entire sim is funded by the military. With that said the addition of these missing armchair general feats should be added as an option. In DCS for example the community, largely guys like me have trouble with slewing maverick realistically as a limitation of hardware. ED responded with an optional unrealistic slewing mode. I use it, it works. But ED did respond. 

Share this post


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

The short answer is "no", the vast majority of armored vehicles lack anything resembling a "cruise control", although on some vehicles (M48/M60 and others) you could use the hand throttle to accomplish the same effect, most Tank Commanders I knew considered that bad form. If you need consistent speed on a route, use a single route with "march" settings and space out individual units so they don't bunch up as they joint it. 

 

Attempting to create a broad movement/assault with dissimilar units will invariably lead to some units arriving faster than others, and this is reflected in reality (e.g. tanks tend to move faster than IFVs in the attack).  As a commander, it's your responsibility to synchronize the movement of your forces by understanding and taking into account their varying speeds and capabilities.  There is no "easy" way.

 

OK so for this entire discussion I prefer realistic. If its not a feature of modeled tanks I dont want it. Others might but why not be optional. A checkbox optional. 

Share this post


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

Since this PE is targeted at the niche and not the GO people, these requests are in order even if the entire sim is funded by the military. With that said the addition of these missing armchair general feats should be added as an option. In DCS for example the community, largely guys like me have trouble with slewing maverick realistically as a limitation of hardware. ED responded with an optional unrealistic slewing mode. I use it, it works. But ED did respond. 

 

Can I suggest that you put it in the wish list thread and stop derailing this one.

 

Zero, I should have followed your lead. ;)

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wildbillkelsoe said:

OK so for this entire discussion I prefer realistic. If its not a feature of modeled tanks I dont want it. Others might but why not be optional. A checkbox optional. 

a) Realistic, you got.

 

b) Given that human drivers can be ordered to maintain a certain speed on a road, future versions of SB Pro will bring that option to you, too

 

c) Maybe I'm weird in that respect, but I absolutely loathe game designs that evade the hard choices by burdening the user with multiple options screens with loads of checkboxes.

 

There is of course also the "positive vew point" to it, that it "gives the player the freedom of choice". But there is such a thing as "too much choice". Typically in a shop people like to have the choice between the cheapest version of a product, a luxury variant, and one or two in the middle. Anything beyond that typically results in an increasing feeling of being unable to decide which if the many options is the right one. Who of us can immediately say the answer what a "LOD bias" in a graphics options menu stands for, whether that's a good thing, if the slider should be on the left, the right, or better somewhere in the middle (or was that a trick question, and it's a binary choice?)

 

To me, game options that go beyond a few very clear choices are often an indicator that the game designer isn't quite sure himself what he wants, which usually results in a poorer game than a title could be. MInd you, this is just my rule of thumb, I'm sure there are exceptions to such a simple heuristic. But this is my design philosophy, and I try to stick to it (I also try not to be a dictator, so if the beta testers are telling me that they really want certain options I usually yield to their judgment). In SB Pro you get to choose a difficulty level, and those levels are clearly distinguishable. You can choose between different realism levels, but none of them influence the quality of the simulation results. These are the kind of choices that are really needed. And we allow the mission designer a lot of options since he should be given the necessary tools to create the kind of scenario that matches his vision.

 

Loads of options to me are a sign that someone wasn't able to cast a decision, or wasn't sure of his game design, or his target audience. Of course, the absence of options does not guarantee superior game design; it would be foolish to make such a converse conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG this thread ran off the tracks O.o

 

Anyway a debate is properbly sound.

 

Love the answer though Ssnake. The whole question came up as i'm building a new 73 Eastings scenario, where the three US troops ran across the desert at around 10-15 km/h (target was 15 km/h  (Iron Troop slower then Ghost and Echo) from 63 eastings until first contact. Currently im using embark if.. in conjuction with not checking condition for 1.5 min pr. waypoint. It works but it aint pretty. It also creats a LOT of "xxx arrived at yyy" calls....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we deviated a bit into off-topic territory, but I think you deserve an explanation about why we made certain design decisions. Not everything in SB Pro is immediately understandable; after nearly 20 years of continuous development that's probably only natural, but still a problem. Also, only if I explain things we can think about whether certain decisions are still valid or should be changed. It's not like I have the answers to everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Maybe we deviated a bit into off-topic territory, but I think you deserve an explanation about why we made certain design decisions. Not everything in SB Pro is immediately understandable; after nearly 20 years of continuous development that's probably only natural, but still a problem. Also, only if I explain things we can think about whether certain decisions are still valid or should be changed. It's not like I have the answers to everything.

 

You are right in explaining this and I apologise if I derailed OPs thread but I like realism and in all my other sims (A3, DCS, DW SH3, etc..) I use the highest realism possible. Exiting the room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...