Jump to content
Galileo

Gunner HEAT PC

Recommended Posts

On 5/12/2020 at 6:25 AM, Maj.Hans said:

Oh man...This is gonna be good.

LOL this is not gonna be good.  I'm out.  It's massive multiplayer too isn't it?  And 3rd person external view only????  barf

 

 Oh noes ... so another world of fantasy tanks or warthunder - power to the people who likes those and good on them.

But there is a reason I personally do not play either

 

Plus 3rd person view only? I dont get it - whats the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nike-Ajax said:

 Oh noes ... so another world of fantasy tanks or warthunder - power to the people who likes those and good on them.

But there is a reason I personally do not play either

 

Plus 3rd person view only? I dont get it - whats the point?

I'll wait with judgement until until  at least beta version is published

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It´s not that bad, even considering it´s in alpha.  I have been messing with it for awhile, and to be honest, If I had to choose (aside from SB), any of the tank games now available, I would choose this.  It´s sort of like DCS Combined Arms while in tank view.  You have a 3rd. person view, a Commander view, gunner view, and if available a 2nd aux gunner view. You do have to lase and/or lead-lase, which that I know of you don´t need to do in World of Wussy´s, or Turdthunder.

 

Come on guys, it´s a tank game with good intentions, be nice! 😉

 

Hey it´s a free demo, download it and try it, easy as that...

 

Red-acted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look about the views...

 

A third person "observer" or "external cam" view is fine by me.

 

What I want from a vehicle in general is:

 

1. Gunner's gun-sight views, accurately modeled as much as possible.

2. Gunner's front vision port, if applicable.  This may be as simple as a 2D image with a representation of a vision port like the Unity Sight was in the original Steel Beasts.

3. Commander's unbuttoned view.

4. Commander's buttoned-up view.  This may be as simple as the array of vision blocks as presented to us by the original Steel Beasts, and by ProPE when crewing certain vehicles without a 3D interior.

5. If the commander had access to other devices such as magnified periscopes etc, it would be good to have this as well.

 

Nice To Have:

6. "Overhead Cover" positions, if applicable.

 

Flashy, and cool, but I could care less:

7. Fully modeled 3D interiors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

Look about the views...

 

A third person "observer" or "external cam" view is fine by me.

 

What I want from a vehicle in general is:

 

1. Gunner's gun-sight views, accurately modeled as much as possible.

2. Gunner's front vision port, if applicable.  This may be as simple as a 2D image with a representation of a vision port like the Unity Sight was in the original Steel Beasts.

3. Commander's unbuttoned view.

4. Commander's buttoned-up view.  This may be as simple as the array of vision blocks as presented to us by the original Steel Beasts, and by ProPE when crewing certain vehicles without a 3D interior.

5. If the commander had access to other devices such as magnified periscopes etc, it would be good to have this as well.

 

Nice To Have:

6. "Overhead Cover" positions, if applicable.

 

Flashy, and cool, but I could care less:

7. Fully modeled 3D interiors.

A little off topic.

But although i admire a fully modelled interior. (particularly the M-60 in SB)

Realistically do players really need them, If your in the middle of a fire fight all you need are your optics and

Key commands. Yes it does add to the illusion of being in a tank and has trianing value for military recruits 

But speaking for my self i would still enjoy SB if it only modeled sights and key commands instead of switchology.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Honestly I could go without a full 3d interior, but just nothing no. Cmon, M1TP2 had 2D interiors 20 years ago... At least give me a 2D interior.

 

spacer.png

Edited by stormrider_sp

Share this post


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

Honestly I could go without a full 3d interior, but just nothing no. Cmon, M1TP2 had 2D interiors 20 years ago... At least give me a 2D interior.

 

spacer.png

that would be plenty fine by me too.

 

In the case of the M1A2, such a view is almost essential due to the instrumentation and other panels.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, they're working on a prototype that is good enough to convince some investor to put more money into this. The prototype doesn't need interiors. Interiors are also an artwork time sink, and difficult to make without access to a vehicle. I think their development strategy is solid. If I were to start from scratch, I might do it the same way. And I wouldn't bother with interiors for the demonstrator stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

a decent roof model, and good vision block models for the commander is what is essential. 

a full-on 500 hour grail quest T-72 interior.. not so much. 

the only way a full-on interior would be useful for casuals, is if could double as a tutorial. 

e.g if you mouse over buttons or panels, they would explain to you how to use them, and display keyboard shortcuts. 

 

in any case, looks like they(possibly he?) is off to a good start. 

407 people sponsoring, making around 2100$ a month from patreon. 

could very well end up like steel armor tho. years of work for very little gain. 

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ssnake has a very valid point there, apart from his hands-on experience.  As he stated, as a new team/project, and from the looks of it (and I don´t mean graphically), they don´t have a investor, or BIG money behind the project.  Actually, they only have a very modest Patreon subscription to help out in the project. There´s no goal set kickstarter campaign like alot of other projects.  With that said, I get a feeling of a modest, passionate project with good intentions.  They seem to be on the right track, and as Neils stated, you don´t need fancy interiors to show off you´re intentions.  In it´s basic form, it´s fun and get´s the job done, and to me it dosent feel arcadey.  Turret speed could be better, but hey it´s WIP.

 

Could be wrong with all this, as in everything in life, but as is, you have a full functional demo with plenty to do/try.  Which is alot more then some other EA games will give you.  It´s a very early alpha, and sure it could be better, but aagain, as it is, it beats alot of EA games on Steam with a price tag on them.

 

The core of the game, which is what the demo shows, is fun as it is, and it´s alot more realistic (to a degree in it´s WIP mode), then some of the full fleshed tank games out there. At least for me...

 

To be clear, IMHO there is no game/sim that can compare to SB Pro PE in it´s gener, but if I wanted a change for awhile, I would be happy with something in the line of GHPC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, stormrider_sp said:

Honestly I could go without a full 3d interior, but just nothing no. Cmon, M1TP2 had 2D interiors 20 years ago... At least give me a 2D interior.

 

spacer.png

I love these 2d interiors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a strong feeling that GHPC will be published by Microprose.  This game fall into what they want to do like a "new/remake" of M1 TP.

MP will be publisher of Sea of Power (the new Red Storm Rising) and Task Force Admiral (the new Task force 1942)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the developer states that he doesn't want a world of tanks experience, he is going for fidelity with some procedures simplified to be more accessible (at least in his estimation of it).

speaking from the standpoint of potential customer, a simulation of tanks and AFVs implies a combined arms experience, otherwise they may have the fundamentals

of how the tanks operate squared away, but pure AFV combat  only goes so far and gives the impression the game is incomplete (otherwise coaxial machine guns, autocannons and high explosive rounds won't have much to do, lessons will inform sloppy or reckless tactics

as such without infantry support).  notwithstanding the original steel beasts 1.0, up until then tank simulators either had no infantry, or maybe a single bazooka or ATGM section modeled here and there, or squads of primitive sprites glued together, which could not occupy structures and so forth, they were just

vaguely present. this is an area that is still sparse in 2020, with steel beasts and perhaps ARMA 3 being the exceptions. with these games available, in my view there ought to be infantry and support units available as targets and as threats roughly in that same ballpark.

then those things might suggest an artillery model of some kind, which might in turn create more feature creep in other areas- and so you can see how easy it becomes a difficult task once they start adding these components.

but either the infantry are not in state yet ready to be shown, or they are absent all together at this stage- if the developer goes that way, there's probably still a lot of work to do before a playable release. otherwise graphics are really the only area they could work on to stand out apart

from a cheap price point to attract casual players who just want to shoot tanks for 20 minutes and move on without much mission planning or complexity.

 

the AI is moreover another thing, even all the models look and feel right from the standpoint of ballistics and sensors and armor models integrate well enough together so that results are acceptable by players, it's a whole different thing when

AI routines cannot detect or acquire one another in a way that becomes noticeable to frustrated players, or seem omniscient or seem to cheat in their detection routines,

or fail to avoid water obstacles or other traps, get caught in some decision loop and drive in circles- this was by and large the experience that M1TP2 delivered without player intervention. M1TP2

was mostly in my view a shooting gallery experience, you just kept pulling the trigger on tank hordes until your ammo racks were depleted. the developers could study steel beasts and glean information from that, but the AI will be something they will

have to develop on their own, and to get believe-able if not passable AI behavior is rather the exception than the rule (which is probably one reason why it is profitable for a war thunder/world of tanks business model, you don't have to spend resources to program opponents

with human players providing that in massively online multi-player).

 

i like to see developers who have passion in their work succeed, i wish the developer the best.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I have a strong feeling that GHPC will be published by Microprose. 

 

that's getting ahead of ourselves; it's not a forgone conclusion GHPC will make it to a completed state, as we all know. just look at microprose- they went from promising new dimensions of microprose created content to apparently

changing directions to the publishing game. it's not easy.

Share this post


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

 

that's getting ahead of ourselves; it's not a forgone conclusion GHPC will make it to a completed state, as we all know. just look at microprose- they went from promising new dimensions of microprose created content to apparently

changing directions to the publishing game. it's not easy.

They are currently developing games and are not only publishers (right now they are going into publishing just to have some games  - 4 so far - in the 2020-2021period with their name on it).

They have around 17 games on their "to-do list" now. B-17 will be the first of their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Galileo said:

They are currently developing games and are not only publishers (right now they are going into publishing just to have some games  - 4 so far - in the 2020-2021period with their name on it).

They have around 17 games on their "to-do list" now. B-17 will be the first of their own.

not to get off track from the topic, but again, none of this is actualized yet until it actually goes to market. just like owning stocks- you have not gained or lost anything when the stocks are up or down until you actually sell and realize those gains or losses.

 

i don't know if it's a good sign to have 17 games on a "to do" list, that could indicate a lack of focus: by their own marketing materials with partner bill stealey, they were either supposed to have modern era combat games in development, or there was supposed to be a WW2 warbirds game released by late 2019, which some of us predicted wasn't going to happen. then you look at their marketing materials which promis on the one hand modern simulations and on the other seems to have more invested in world war 2 aircraft interior models, and on their own website seems to go in a different direction and solicits developers who

seek a publisher. so all of this is speculative and all over the place right now, nothing to show yet.

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, just found out GHPC has a semple tank in it, now i have to get it.

If you don't know what a semple tank is google it 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Marko said:

Ok, just found out GHPC has a semple tank in it, now i have to get it.

 

 

Thanks another reason why not to waste my money on it.

 

More fantasy vehicles than didn't get into production or go on operations along with "realistic" match ups (T-72 Vs Second World War New Zealand Home Guard type vehicle).

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Developer Q&A stream from this week.

 

He talks about including infantry and other elements to form a combined arms experience.

 

I like where he's going: "It's not just about tanks".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

yup shaping up nicely...if this is going where I think it is...gonna be my #1

 

FCS... damage modeling... balistics check

Russian playables check

gonna have a mission maker/editor check

pve and co-op(pvp??) check

arma/warthunder level graphics check

 

 

 

Edited by Badger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

hmm, looks a bit potato currently tho, even on highest settings? not sure if i'm doing something wrong here. 

mouse controls as well are not good. WOT-like mouse, instead of SB-like makes tracking targets and adding lead nearly impossible. 

potato.jpg

Edited by dejawolf

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...