Jump to content
12Alfa

Development News Discussion

Recommended Posts

The new M1 looks impressive, but.... isnt there going to be a new roof texture file as well to go with this skin :(?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it seems to me that you guys are determined to keep the US hardware in SB at stone age technology. I really get the impression that your dev team is more than a bit Euro-centric.

Mate, if you want to outlay the serious cash that the Australian Army (amongst others who DON'T use any version of the Bradley) has to get it's vehicles (including it's M1A1 Abrams variant) into the Steelbeasts library, then go ahead. Until then, you'll get whatever the military customers ask for. If those requests happen to be 20 different Leo models then thats just what it is.

If you are from the United States, lobby your congressman or mayor or whatever to get the Army to adopt SB Pro PE. Then you can get your M2A-whatever variant.

In the mean time, play M1 Tank Platoon 2.. a GAME that is designed to make the M1A2 an unstoppable engine of death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ummm, yeah... OK. :roll:

I want to be the first person to welcome Texas (USA) to Europe! :biggrin:

on another note, floydii is all right...

its not Esimgames thats Eurocentric, its European armys thats Esimcentric.

US army dont pay for getting vehicles in the game so you should really be happy that there actually are US vehicles in the game.

allot of european armys sees the value of SB in training and pushes cash into it and orders their desired version of their vehicles.

Dont forget, its the Army customers that controls what they want to get in the game, we just get the pleasure of playing with those toys as well.

/KT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Btw Volcano - any chance you guys can put in a decent movement / idle sound for the Leopard tank that sounds more like a Leopard instead of the current one? (for me it sounds like a coffee-machine, its horrible... or.... why not release a sound mod for it- since its more easier to implement than other features) You surely have something much better in stash.

Actually, I spent the last six hours looking through my sound library and I did come across better samples. I will *probably* replace most of the SB1 era tank automotive sounds and will most likely add separate sounds that I have recorded for both the T72 and T80 engine and movement. It is something that I have been meaning to do, but who knows what will happen. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I spent the last six hours looking through my sound library and I did come across better samples. I will *probably* replace most of the SB1 era tank automotive sounds and will most likely add separate sounds that I have recorded for both the T72 and T80 engine and movement. It is something that I have been meaning to do, but who knows what will happen. :o

Thank you Sir! This sounds real good, can't wait for this update ;) - but does this mean that Leo's will use different sound samples than the T-72 - or the Leo's will get these new T-72 sounds as well? (and the M1's the sound from the T-80)

And keep browsing that sound library of yours - you might find some other cool stuff as well ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....so why is it that anytime anyone asks for movable suspension or treadmarks or visible crew or whatnot, you rightly blast them for wanting you to waste time on 'eye candy', yet here you're wasting dev time on making a new model of a tank already in the game that already looks fine?

Dejawolf did this in his spare time. It was not ordered from eSim Games (but we gladly accept it as an unsolicited submission). We could add it in because the M1A1 as such was already in, so all that was required is swapping a few resource files, that's virtually zero effort for Al.

A new tank with different properties and special capabilities is a different thing. We're working on a tool that will make at least non-playable vehicles easier to integrate. Once that this is complete we'll see a rush of stockpiled models to flow into SB Pro in a very short time.

A playable vehicle however needs a detailed model of its fire control system, we need to define the coordinates for each sight and each button on the inside, define what each button does, and no, we can't simply copy & paste from a "similar" tank and then just fix the different elements.

Likewise, bobbing roadwheels are doable, but again it requires that we define animations for each roadwheel to do the bobbing, and what's even more important is that we can no longer treat the vehicle as a stiff body with a point mass but need a model instead of fourteen coupled springs (which is a nightmare of differential equations) which we somehow need to simplify to look and behave "reasonably close" to reality without requiring five pages of differential equations to be calculated ten times a second just to animate the roadwheels. The "return on investment" is relatively low - some eye candy that people take for granted soon after introduction, and better observarion and gunnery options for slow movement in unstabilized modes.

Eventually we'll do it anyway, but as you can see these cases simply are not comparable.

Sometimes it seems to me that you guys are determined to keep the US hardware in SB at stone age technology. I really get the impression that your dev team is more than a bit Euro-centric.

Like others wrote before, its a consequence of our customer structure. Our biggest customers are Australia, Spain, and Denmark, with additional customers being Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Austria, Chile, Colombia, New Zealand. With the exception of Australia, none of them has M1s in their inventory, and even here it is the M1A1(AIM) and not the fancy M1A2(SEP). Who, except for the US Army which isn't our customer, uses the Bradley, the Stryker, the MGS, ...?

Which of our customers is planning to wage war with the US, so they need us and US equipment in SB Pro to simulate the battle results? (Would we actually do business with such a customer? ...uh, not!)

So, we can only work on US equipment (or British, or French, or Israeli, or Russian, ...) in times "between contracts". Unfortunately our army customers want a lot of new stuff in SB Pro (see the version history) which leaves relatively little wiggle room currently for our own ambitions, unless we wanted to dump them (but I'm not sure if that's in your own best interest either).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...but does this mean that Leo's will use different sound samples than the T-72 - or the Leo's will get these new T-72 sounds as well?

Well, I don't know yet since the implementation of new sounds does not entirely depend on me. But I would of course prefer that the T72 and T80 had separate sounds than all other tanks. I can assure you, no one wants sound improvements more than me, so anything that does not get done is not for a lack of trying. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new M1 screen shots look great, nice work. Having said that, I noticed the antenna are in the stowed position.

This will give the M1 a large advantage in some situations. I have killed many players in multi play becuase I could see thier antenna above a hill crest while the enemy thought they were well out of LOS. (A victim references can be provided upon request).

Stowing the antenna is a decent tactical advantage, however will the equipment that is supported by the antenna have the same effectiveness stowed versus not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sim seems to get better and better...and looks better and better. Aww man, you really are tempting me. Playing SB1 and then having to look at this beautiful new M1 model inside these great dust clouds...maybe next year. Are there plans to freshen up more models? I know deja did a nice new one for the BMD-2...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

with ref to the latest (beautifull) screenshots could I ask if they have been "touched up" in any way??

No, it came directly from the installation that way. This is the benefit of the dynamic lighting that I mentioned a few versions ago. The pictures were taken in the "early morning" light, which, I think, is the best way to use the whole thing. Starting a battle in the last hour before dawn, so you need to find your way to the line of departure in darkness, and then it gets gradually better.

It's been like that for thousands of years, so it has some air of tradition in it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are there plans to freshen up more models?

Most, at least all the major vehicles, will undergo a face lift now and then. We're preparing a new feature along with these new models, but since Al doesn't have the time to actually implement it we will sneak in the new models as mere artwork upgrades until we have at least 50% or more vehicles with that super-secret new stuff. At that point we will probably have everything in place to justify mooching off a few programming hours.

These are the ways of eving scheming in the background to get new stuff done... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stowing the antenna is a decent tactical advantage, however will the equipment that is supported by the antenna have the same effectiveness stowed versus not?

What I learned from a signals staff officer is that bending antennas will give them a slight directional characteristic when sending transmissions, e.g. you can extend your range a bit if you know where your other station is located. Otherwise it does not affect the overall performance.

The alternative is to go for shorter antennas, which is the way the Bundeswehr has taken. During my days I could see that new radio sets also cut the antenna length about in half (we used to tie them down before, but no longer at that point).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will *probably* replace most of the SB1 era tank automotive sounds and will most likely add separate sounds that I have recorded for both the T72 and T80 engine and movement. It is something that I have been meaning to do, but who knows what will happen. :o

You're such a tease. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Likewise, bobbing roadwheels are doable, but again it requires that we define animations for each roadwheel to do the bobbing, and what's even more important is that we can no longer treat the vehicle as a stiff body with a point mass but need a model instead of fourteen coupled springs (which is a nightmare of differential equations) which we somehow need to simplify to look and behave "reasonably close" to reality without requiring five pages of differential equations to be calculated ten times a second just to animate the roadwheels.

I acn see what might happen if the equation goes wrong.

Read, M88 + tank + tree.

(Ground + Wheel + Fuel cell, air intake, base of turret, etc.)

Eventually we'll do it anyway, but as you can see these cases simply are not comparable.

There you have it, gentlemen.

Which of our customers is planning to wage war with the US, so they need us and US equipment in SB Pro to simulate the battle results? (Would we actually do business with such a customer? ...uh, not!)

So I guess I can't use this software to train my Magic Monkey Tank Crew in my efforts to delcare the Revocation of the Declation of Independence then?

Damn. :biggrin:

Is this all part of your year out from millitary contracts then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, that would explain it. If it's a private submission, all well and good; I just couldn't understand why, after all the talk about not wasting time on eye candy (which, you notice, I support; I think the tread marks and bobbing suspension is pretty low priority), you would spend dev time on something that was already there and already worked just fine.

As for military funding, I understand who does and does not use SB Pro in an official capacity- though I WOULD like to point out that there ARE many US tank and cav units using it; the difference is that they are not purchased through congressionally-approved contracts, but rather are purchased directly by the end-user tank/ mech companies and cav troops by an individual (usually the XO) using FOUO funds (for official use only; kind of an 'army credit card'). So there's a large amount of 'civilian' purchases that are in fact being used by the military.

That aside, I don't see how lack of government contracts keeps anyone from begging for the T-72; all I want is ERA, upgraded/applique armor, dual-plane suspension and a CITV on a couple tanks already in the sim, not a from-the-ground-up rework of fire control.

Of course I've never programmed anything this complex, but it seems to me that by implementing the fire-control algorythm from the Leo II models, and applying constant dynamic lead without need to hit a button, you could replicate the M1A2 FCS. Simply change the display output on the .50 CWS 'gunsight' view to a thermal and apply gunner cueing that's already part of the commander's station controls to replicate the CITV, and increase the armor values which, to the best of my knowledge are changed only in the turret frontal arc. As for internal layout, other than the replacement of the CWS controls with the CITV and FBCB2 panels, I think everything is the same, therefore the internal armor boxes shouldn't need changing. As for changing the internal view, I don't think anyone would bitch too much about having a phantom CWS panel in the field of view, as the internal view on the M1A1 doesn't really do much anyhow, and that can always be altered to reflect the real M1A2 interior somewhere 'down the line'

Edit: Oh, as to stowed antennas, as long as they're not grounding on anything, the output power is the same, and does tend to increase the power output forward and backward along the axis the antenna is pointing. HOWEVER, it does significantly lower the height of the antenna, which adversly affects line-of-sight. The cleaner the line-of-sight from the antenna to the receiving station, the better it works. Lowering the antenna where every little bump in the ground is in the way does tend to reduce effective range... but if you were operating in a flat desert, or your tank was already on a hilltop with clear line-of-sight, it would make no difference whatsoever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We're preparing a new feature along with these new models, but since Al doesn't have the time to actually implement it we will sneak in the new models as mere artwork upgrades until we have at least 50% or more vehicles with that super-secret new stuff. At that point we will probably have everything in place to justify mooching off a few programming hours.

Time to waste some time: what could be this new feature ?

Anyone has a guess ?

K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with ref to the latest (beautifull) screenshots could I ask if they have been "touched up" in any way??

No, we would never touch up a screen shot; it would not be ethical and it wouldn't make sense to do it anyway since it would give false expectations.

Edited by Volcano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for military funding, I understand who does and does not use SB Pro in an official capacity- though I WOULD like to point out that there ARE many US tank and cav units using it; the difference is that they are not purchased through congressionally-approved contracts, but rather are purchased directly by the end-user tank/ mech companies and cav troops by an individual (usually the XO) using FOUO funds (for official use only; kind of an 'army credit card'). So there's a large amount of 'civilian' purchases that are in fact being used by the military.

As much as we welcome individual initiative, I'd like to point out that the use of the Personal Edition in classroom environments would be a violation of our license conditions (unless every soldier brings his own personal PC to class; PE sales figures do not suggest that this is the case).

That aside, I don't see how lack of government contracts keeps anyone from begging for the T-72; all I want is ERA, upgraded/applique armor, dual-plane suspension and a CITV on a couple tanks already in the sim, not a from-the-ground-up rework of fire control.

Consumers have the right to demand everything without the will to pay for it, I have no problems with that. ;) Anybody here can fantasize about what he'd like to see in future SB Pro PE versions, as long as it is accepted that eSim has the right to refuse these suggestions. :)

We do what we can, and I think that most of the users, most of the time, see their interests well represented by eSim Games and the direction of SB Pro development. Needless to say (I say it anyway) that it is nearly impossible to please everybody all the time. There will always be a divergence of interests.

...it seems to me that by implementing the fire-control algorythm from the Leo II models, and applying constant dynamic lead without need to hit a button, you could replicate the M1A2 FCS.

Oh, it's not that we have no idea WHAT to do, or that it would be really difficult and complicated to do it at all. It can be done, let there be no doubt. It's just that it takes time which we don't have at the moment, and sadly it's been like this since 2005.

What happened was that we thought during the 2002-2006 period that a new army customer would want one or two customizations from us and that'd be it. The reality turned out to be that armies were coming back, asking for seconds and thirds. In the beginning I was really happy about this since it meant that we would stay in business for a long time. After all, as a sales rep, my prime directive is to get as many contracts as the company can handle.

Let's face it, eSim Games is a one-trick pony. We have a very, very good trick for our show, but we need to maintain a reputation of reliability to counter the very negative fact that we are uncomfortably small for armies. They don't want to deal with partial solutions (like, buying software from one vendor, PC hardware from someone else, having a third company to do the network cable stuff, a fourth service company to perform software training, and a fifth to develop scenarios and maps). Yet that's exactly what we're doing - we only sell the software, and on occasion we also perform software training, but that's about it.

A "non-committal" promise for programming time from a sales guy to a program manager is almost as binding as a written contract; it's "non-committal" only to the extent that you can't get sued for breaking it, but sure as hell it's going to ruin the relationship. So, in order to reduce our army workload we need a lead time of about three to four years to prepare the customers for a reduction of availability. This is the background why it has taken us so long to reduce our commitment (that process is not yet finished).

This is why we have not been able to implement as much as we wished we could have done for you SB Pro PE users. We used to be a lot more responsive in the early days. I still think that it isn't too bad with us, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm not totally happy with our performance. Yet my prime loyalty belongs to the long-term survival of the company. Only if eSim Games prospers will we have the chance to make SB Pro better. It's trivial, but fundamental.

Fortunately the interests of armies and you do not diverge dramatically. Sure, the priorities are sometimes different, but I'm sure that either group welcomes additions made primarily for the other (at least as long as it doesn't break anything).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it happens, they are forced to bring private PCs; the US Army, in it's infinite wisdom, sets up all issued computers so that you cannot install anything... which is wonderful when one must, say, install falconview or other software essential to running operations, but the S6 is hundreds of miles away. At times like that, it's just easier to carry your own computer knowing that at the end of the tour you'll have to wipe your drives and turn them in to the S6

... not that this has ever happened or anything ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would indeed be interesting to know how many PE users are in fact relevant military personnel (as in, personnel whose experiences in going through PE simulations actually help them at their current assignments).

I do wonder, for example, if anyone in Canada's LSH or 12e RBC regiments are PE users.

In any case, thank you for the detailed explanation, Ssnake, quite enlightening. But really, the fact the armies want more seems to be a good thing to me, ensuring eSim can continue dev work on SB Pro PE.

Incidentally, with the new graphical features and models and such, will the system requirements be increasing?

Itkovian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.373

  • Added 2S6 Tunguska air defense vehicle

I'm wondering - how viable a threat is the Tunguska against other vehicles/infantry? 30mm @ 5000 rpm (albeit in bursts of 250) out to 4000m does not sound too shabby..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incidentally, with the new graphical features and models and such, will the system requirements be increasing?

No, the implementation is just more obvious from what we had before already, and dynamized. It's a pretty low-tech implementation that shouldn't make a difference on any system.

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...