Jump to content

SB Infantry


Grenny
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

Nice try.

Somethings are unsatisfyingly exiting like: Will the AI finally be in the mood to shoot their CG at the enemy position?  Rather then simply shooting the dman thing yourself ...😕

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I AM OLD! 

IT IS MY OPINION THAT THIS SIMULATOR/GAME WOULD HAVE A LARGER FOLLOWING IF THE INFANTRY COULD BE MADE USER FRIENDLY, I.E. MORE CONTROLABLE.  PERSONALLY, I AM FRUSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT THE INFANTRY CONTROL IS SO LIMITED IN STEEL BEASTS. IT IS MY LEAST FAVORITE PART OF THE GAME BY FAR!

SURE, THE F7 GIVES US CONTROL OF ONE OF THE SOLDIERS IN THE SQUAD, BUT I WOUD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SWITCH TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SQUAD OR BE ABLE TO COMMAND THEM EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR AS A GROUP LIKE IN ARMA III VIA OTHER F KEYS. IT IS MORE CONVENIENT THAN THE CONTROLS IN STEEL BEASTS, BUT EMERSES ONE IN THE BATTLE.  I DO NOT FORGET THAT THIS IS, AFTER ALL, A SIMULATOR FOR TRAINING TANKERS, BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT INFANTRY IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN THE TYPE OF BATTLES WE WAGE IN STEEL BEASTS AS IT IS CAPABLE OF WREAKING EXTREME HAVOC ON ARMORED VEHICLES/TANKS.  THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE SUCH VEHICLES, ESPECIALLY TANKS, ARE EXTREMELY VULNERABLE TO DAMAGE/DESTRUCTION BY THE INFANTRY. IF PROPERLY EQUIPPED OF COURSE. THE BATTLES WAGED HERE ARE NOT FOUGHT IN THE YEAR 2030 WHERE FOOTSOLDIER WILL MOST LIKELY BE OBSOLETE. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, A DEPENDABLE/QUICK INFANTRY CONTROL SHOULD BE HIGH A PRIORITY.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arma III is an infantry simulator that happens to have some basic features to play armor.

 

Steel beasts is an infantry simulator that happens to have some basic features to play as an infantryman..

 

In a perfect world we could have both

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember have seen video somewhere where Steelbeast CV9040C  was put together with something that looked similar to arma?  Basically.. somehow.. Arma infantry was able to get inside Steelbeast AFVs and somehow interact with it a bit?  But that was very long time ago.. and I suppose that died, pretty much at beginning, since there was just that one cool video about it.. and thats it, and I think.. even that video is no longer?  Still.. I do wish that one day  we could get something like that to work out...  even when I think it is nearly impossible ever to come to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lumituisku said:

I remember have seen video somewhere where Steelbeast CV9040C  was put together with something that looked similar to arma?  Basically.. somehow.. Arma infantry was able to get inside Steelbeast AFVs and somehow interact with it a bit?  But that was very long time ago.. and I suppose that died, pretty much at beginning, since there was just that one cool video about it.. and thats it, and I think.. even that video is no longer?  Still.. I do wish that one day  we could get something like that to work out...  even when I think it is nearly impossible ever to come to be.

 

Well you can if you have the budget and the gear.

 

"All" you have to do is:

 

1. Have a machine running SB Pro PE.

2. Have a machine running VBS (can't speak about ARMA).

3. Identical terrain on both simulations (resolution, object attributes, etc., not just one running SB Pro PE's Map X and VBS running Bohemia's Map X) usually provided by a Common Terrain Database (potentially another box).

4. Identical ID numbers, e.g. if object 2468 in SB Pro is a tank and object 2468 in VBS is a truck then it gets messy. Again likely requiring a Common Database.

5. Identical armour and weapon modelling so that Infantry weapons have valid effects in SB Pro PE and vice versa.

6. A black box in between to do the HLA / DIS coversion.

 

This is why you can't just slap it together for a LAN party. ;)

 

Edited by Gibsonm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

An entity enumeration translation table can get the issue of different entity IDs done, but of course someone has to write that table. That's the part where most integrators either take a step back or charge lots of dollars because it means hard work. It's not just about truck vs tank. It goes to the level of the individual projectile: It's a cal .50 round, all right ... but SLAP, M8, M2, or M33, or...?

The performance can vary significantly, provided that you have a sufficiently detailed model of weapons effects and target vulnerability. If one simulation is energy based and the other operates with hit points, well, no translation is possible because there simply is no direct representation of either model in the other simulation.

 

While we're at it, entity enumerations is one thing. But you'd also like to correlate life forms (a donkey in simulation A shouldn't be a duck in sim B), and postures (is the human life form in a prone position, aiming from a kneel, or running upright?)

 

At the moment, bringing multiple simulations into the same exercise requires an unreasonable amount of effort for comparatively little gain in training outcomes. The technology is there, in principle. But is it economically viable? That depends entirely on how much money you're willing to shell out for small gains in outcomes, and the question must be allowed if those same dollars wouldn't yield a higher return if invested into something else. So, as long as the federation of different simulation systems is cumbersome and low in training effect yield, it's not happening in practice. eSim Games wouldn't be the obstacle if a customer were serious about the matter, but the reality is that it would require the cooperation of companies who are effectively competitors in a rather small market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh well, I'd be happy with an option to shot handweapons (esp. AT-handweapons)...and some more fortification types for infantry.

Things cool to have and making the sim more "combined-arms'y". Whenever it is possible to techically do~ and priorisation allows it ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Volcano said:

 (that have actual ballistics), ...

tbh, I'd go with "working" or "sensable" ballistics if necessary

 

Was it De Gaulle(???) Patton who said: "The biggest enemy of a good plan, is the (endless)search for the perfect one."

 

😉

Edited by Grenny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Mirzayev said:

That proposal of manually shooting AT weapons has been mentioned for years. 

 

Glad to see we are still at the "it would be nice... BUT" stage.

Not so much a "but"...more an "if"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Identifying an issue and actually doing something about it is not always easy.

RPGs were implemented in SB Pro with no ballistic trajectory whatsoever (we were young, and didn't know better, and the programmer who wrote the original code decided to retire with comparatively little forewarning in 2012; took me a moment to assemble a new team and get things under control).

We now need to research the properties of almost 40 different missiles, all of which are, well, rockets, and therefore require a partially non-ballistic trajectory (so yes, this is, literally, rocket science). In most cases, the data are either hard to find or classified, and we have essentially collected everything that's relatively easy to find. From this we will now have to estimate parameter sets for each missile, develop a proper model, and then also teach the AI how to aim these things. And of course there's a lot of other work to do.

 

It's much easier to point out that you "said so years ago" than to actually do something about it. We are doing it. That you aren't happy with the speed of progress is something I have to learn to live with. I have never sugar coated shortcomings of the simulation, and been about as open and honest about matters as I possibly could be. The implicit flip side of the deal is that I would be delighted if we could discuss the matter without slipping into sarcasm, because it accomplishes nothing but to make everybody feel worse, and go defensive on matters in general, so it's more of a hindrance than a motivation to change things for the better.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

(so yes, this is, literally, rocket science

Analysis is paralysis - and that seems like it is totally, 100% self inflicted by.......you.

 

At what point is abstraction acceptable?

 

This isn't a flight sim where some weirdo is going to suddenly show blast the game because the velocity of the [INSERT OBSCURE RPG ROUND] is represented in game with a velocity that is .05% higher than its real life projectile. 

 

You guys literally modeled manual-fire 40mm HE handheld rounds just fine. Nobody is complaining about that...

 

See Nobody Cares GIFs | Tenor

 

 

I don't know much about rocket science but I do know there HERE and NOW: the in-game infantry is LACKING. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who is new to the game I would just like to say this is the first time ive ever seen a forum where the the devs are so active and doing things like answering questions on how to build scenarios etc, so I appreciate that a lot.

 

As for the infantry I cant comment much, personally I would rather see advancements made in ai and behavior, programmable abilities in the scenario editor etc over being able to play them.

 

Also if it came down to having more playable infantry abilities or more playable vehicles like the other atgm vehicles or other models of ifv/armor or improved 3d interiors for the vehicles like the scimitar that have very basic ones I would personally choose the vehicles anyday. There are countless games with detailed infantry combat but very very few that model armored vehicles in detail.

Edited by Poofydoodle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Poofydoodle said:

As someone who is new to the game I would just like to say this is the first time ive ever seen a forum where the the devs are so active and doing things like answering questions on how to build scenarios etc, so I appreciate that a lot.

 

As for the infantry I cant comment much, personally I would rather see advancements made in ai and behavior, programmable abilities in the scenario editor etc over being able to play them.

 

Also if it came down to having more playable infantry abilities or more playable vehicles like the other atgm vehicles or other models of ifv/armor or improved 3d interiors for the vehicles like the scimitar that have very basic ones I would personally choose the vehicles anyday. There are countless games with detailed infantry combat but very very few that model armored vehicles in detail.

The point is, if you want to model combined arms combat...it just helps when modelling all arms as good as possible. In this setting tanks never work without infantry and infantry (should) not work without the tanks.

When you want to do that in multi player also, the infantry should be attractive to play...not only the tanks. or else...why would anyone man the infantry part??(and believe me, that is a big problem)

And its highly frustrating if you place infantry in a perfect spot, only for them to never take the shot...without any indication for you on why that is.

Would you find playing tanks attractive, if you have no control on when /if they are going to engage?

Edited by Grenny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Ssnake locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...