Jump to content

I'm now confused as to which pre-order?


Wolfseven
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am only asking about more or less future plans. In the past it was clear to us (I think) that charges were only from major version changes. So from 2.x to 3.0, 3.x to 4.x, but that changed with the 4.0 to 4.1 

Is eSimGames going to continue doing that plan of charges in future? Can we expect a change of engine for Vulkan or dx11 anytime and will it be payware or free from 4.3? 

As said, I clearly understand that are people that are more than happy to pay for the new vehicles 4.3 is going to bring, but appart from what I have seen in the new tictoc youtube videos, they don't show me anything that is a game changer for me, and that is the reason I wouldn't like to pay for the update. But the problem is that if I don't pay the update, then I wouldn't be able to play with my 4 friends that have the game... so to continue multiplayer sessions unless they remain in the 4.2x it wouldn't be possible.

 

If eSimGames don't see there a problem... ok, but I clearly see it, as the continouly charge of updates can make people jump off the train and leave the community weaker than it is already (at least in my local area).

That is the reason, I said about the DCS solution. charging for the vehicles to  costummers and giving free updates. DCS has updated from 2.x to the version we have for years always for free, and that makes the possibility to let us play with people that even didn't buy a module (just use the free ones), making an strong community. You only have to search for everyday new videos in youtube about DCS and SteelBeast. Wouldn't like eSimGames to have an strong community as they do? And they also has milirary contractors.

I don't feel fair to be charged for an update that brings me vehicles that I don't care. I have enough with the ones I have. Of course I would pay for missions, campaigns, even a deep modelling system vehicle, better graphics, new pbr textures, Real sensation landscapes with real cities and villages apearance. Real weather problems with rain, mud terrain, etc etc. etc... and I would pay more than the 190$ I spent in SB, as maybe 2000$ I left in DCS world. For me is a matter of value for what I pay.. and of course I repeat, I totally understand that there are people that are more than pleased, and would pay more for what the 4.3 version will offer.

 

But I understand that SteelBeast PE is link with the military version. And military don't want such updates, making a better GAME, preserving the SIMULATION it already has. For that reason I ask eSim Games for the consideration of giving us a plan for future charges, and changes, that of course cannot be acomplished, but forgiven with good reasons, and the option to not make future updates payware  yes or yes, to continously play with your friends, but fund with not necesary updates.

Edited by Japo32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 minutes ago, Japo32 said:

I am only asking about more or less future plans. In the past it was clear to us (I think) that charges were only from major version changes. So from 2.x to 3.0, 3.x to 4.x, but that changed with the 4.1 to 4.2 

That's not quite correct.

SB Pro PE 2.2 was the "first" PE version

Version 2.3 was a free beta

2.4 was sold

2.5 was sold

2.6 was sold

The team voted to call version 2.8 "3.0", and in all fairness, it was justified; had we called it 2.8, we would have sold it nevertheless.

Likewise we called internal version 3.4 "4.0" even though we had to walk back at the last minute from introducing high resolution terrain because it wasn't mature enough "for public consumption", so to speak.

4.1 then brought the high-res terrain, but not for free.

4.2 was a free update because I felt bad that we had been forced to sell both 4.0 and 4.1, so I wanted to make good for it.

4.3 is now an upgrade again.

10 minutes ago, Japo32 said:

Is eSimGames going to continue doing that plan of charges in future? Can we expect a change of engine for Vulkan or dx11 anytime and will it be payware or free from 4.3? 

Version 5.0 will do away with DirectX 9. The first version 5 application will be finished this year. But we will have to develop a number of version 5 applications that we may then fuse into one integrated package later (or keep separate; e.g. from a functional perspective a Map Editor could be kept a separate program without loss of convenience for the user) before we can present it as a "Steel Beasts version 5" to the general public. The execution phase with all the combat vehicles and explosions, the fun part, will take longest to convert. So, in all likelihood there will be one or two more intermediary versions, shall we call them "4.5" and "4.8" or something like that.

15 minutes ago, Japo32 said:

from what I have seen in the new youtube videos, they don't show me anything that is a game changer for me, .... but ... if I don't pay the update, then I wouldn't be able to play with my 4 friends that have the game... so to continue multiplayer sessions unless they remain in the 4.2x it wouldn't be possible.

You could buy a secondary license for $25.-, donate it to one of your friends, and if you set things up properly you could use this secondary license as long as his connection is up. You'll have to figure out for yourselves how to do it, I'm not going to assume direct or indirect responsibility here by giving specific advice myself on your network configuration (or having someone else do it on this forum). Or, if you do this only for some time - say four months out of a whole year, there's that "season pass" of a four-month license (but of course, you're then quickly approaching the point where simply upgrading SB Pro PE would have been more economical). Even if your friends upgrade to 4.3, that doesn't invalidate their 4.1 licenses, so you could still play 4.2 together.

 

26 minutes ago, Japo32 said:

That is the reason, I said about the DCS solution. charging for the vehicles to  costummers and giving free updates. DCS has updated from 2.x to the version we have for years always for free, and that makes the possibility to let us play with people that even didn't buy a module (just use the free ones), making an strong community. You only have to search for everyday new videos in youtube about DCS and SteelBeast. Wouldn't like eSimGames to have an strong community as they do? And they also has milirary contractors.

The comparison is not particularly illuminating. Shall we just go by the number of Youtube subscribers to the official channels: Eagle Dynamics: Exactly 100,000 subscribers today. eSim Games, 1,448. If we had 100 times more consumer customers than we do, their business model might work for us. But we don't, so it doesn't. Flight sims are immensely more popular. If you want to make a popular tank game - the verdict is still out on GHPC, but I wish them all the best - right now it looks as if people want a pretty-looking, shallow depth simulation game with free to play and pay to win business model, and countless hours of grinding for those who don't want to sink too much money into the bottomless pit of gold ammo. Note that the grinders are absolutely essential as cannon fodder to keep the whales happy. If that's what you want, well, I know of at least two popular games that use this method. They have millions of players, so they can afford an entirely different business as well. There's a difference if you own one car and decide that you want to make a living as an independent cabbie, or a fleet of thousands of cars and run a rental car business, or if you build millions of cars and sell them because you're Toyota. It's all "something with cars", but the parallels end right there.

 

Steel Beasts offers a unique perspective that is highly educational and moderately entertaining on the vehicle-centric aspect of  contemporary combined arms land warfare, especially in the high intensity combat domain. We try to stay on the forefront of present day armored combat and its near future. Our emphasis on realistic procedures and realistic outcomes limits our freedom to shift the product balance more in favor of ease of access and consumer orientation. That's just not what we do, and that is a natural limiter to the number of people we can win as enthusiastic customers. Over the decades I have seen a lot of attempts of blindfolded people to try and fix my business with a thousand mile long screwdriver because they had a gut feeling that if just we lowered prices/spent more effort on good looks we would surely inflate the number of customers by a factor of "up to 10" (but I'd need a factor 100 to really change things). In short, if only Steel Beasts wasn't what it is, it could be like [insert title of some other game].

 

You'd like us to take a different direction because that's where your personal preferences are. Fair enough, everybody has the right to his own opinion. And I'd love to see everything that you mentioned in Steel Beasts, one day. It's just that we disagree about how viable it is for eSim Games to get there on short notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well.. first I was from 3.0 so I didn't know the charges between versions in 2.x That is my fault from not be informative, but from 3.0 to 4.2 nine years has passed that let me think was different. In any case as said, that is what discovered today, and I don't like it.

 

Second, Steelbeast don't have the numbers that DCS has because its price. Countless number of times I told people that love simulation to enter SteelBeasts, that it was not expensive, because 120$ are just 2 DCS modules price. But they never tried. As I think they would never try DCS if DCS would cost 120$ enter. FlightSims are more popular? well depend on what sim, because DCS is not friend of newcommers also. The step to learn is huge, as SteelBeast, and the problem I see to make your communty grow is the initial entering price. And I know that there are 9$ 1 month etc etc... and that is the product those people that are curious take, but when they see that there are not people to play with, because I am here since 3.0 but I am not a hardcore tank simmer, then they realize that they did well not expending the 120$. And examples like this type of people... countless. But of course as you said, nobody changed your mind, so I won't pay too much attention trying to change it now. Even I tried in several wishlist during the years, and always there was an explanation to say a "no". So....... that is...

 

For 9 years I know very well what are the strong points of SteelBeasts. Never ever wanted or imagined to reduce a bit of programming in those strong points. I love simulation, and do simulation a lot (DCS, XPlane which I worked in the main team Laminar Research for 8 years), Silent Hunter with Wolfpack, Dangerous waters, Cmano, Run8 train simulation, and tank sims as SteelArmor Blaze of war, Combat mission (more strategic one), and of course SteelBeasts. You don't have to introduce me World of Tanks (which I don't like) or any other soft game. I know all them well... remember I work in game indrustry for 25 years so I have a  deep vission of arcade and simulation, but it seems that when hard simmers heard something of making gameplay they want to burn in fire the witches, and call you blasfemous to comparing them with an Arcade more casual game. 

 

but enough talking. I am not going to convince you and you are not going neither. In any case, thanks for sharing the plans with SB, more or less. Then I know there will be 2 more payware updates in SB before reaching an dx11 probably. That would make the expends to continously reach each new updates up to 120$ more or less. So I think I preffer to wait for that dx11 future patch and expend maybe those 115$ with a new licence in future if it is good enough. Or if I see something that interest me in future pay de upgrade one. 

Thanks for chatting with me and not sending me to hell.

Edited by Japo32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
16 minutes ago, Japo32 said:

Thanks for chatting with me and not sending me to hell.

We may disagree about the validity of certain arguments, but at least you're making your case, so why would I not respond?

One can have a civilized exchange of views without having to agree on everything. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Japo32 said:

Second, Steelbeast don't have the numbers that DCS has because its price.

 

on the face of it, DCS is probably more expensive if you were to get started today- assuming you bought only half the modules (let's say you are interested in only one or two aircraft but you need the terrain modules), that is in the range of hundreds of dollars. with the exception of combined arms,  DCS requires much more commitment to hardware to have a decent experience with to fly any of the aircraft you will need a good HOTAS setup with throttle and joystick, and some kind of head tracking solution- either a VR set (i have tried it, didn't like it), or a tracker with IR camera (this is becoming a cheaper route, there are DIY kits that require more knowledge of what the user is doing, but conceivably cheaper). it is nearly pointless to try and run it without one or the other.

 

finally, it isn't a straight comparison, that is, it is not a zero sum game where one takes away users from the other- it is like saying the reason why more people don't go surfing is because they're playing tennis; in this case, you are seeing the hardcore users go to DCS because they prefer the subject matter, not because of the price tag. with some users spending time and money building these immersive cockpits, but even where the typical user isn't doing that, they still have to front a lot of money on the minimum hardware to run DCS, which requires a powerful machine to have a decent experience with a VR headset. but they are motivated to have these expensive setups because of the different subject matter. the type of user who can afford all that probably can afford both DCS and steel beasts, but there is another factor- it is the type of user who wants to spend weeks and months on the learning curve for each aircraft- again, that type of user is playing DCS because that is what they want to do rather than because they are turned off by the price tag of the alternative

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2022 at 11:43 PM, Wolfseven said:

so which one?

 

I have 4.268. 

 

the only way to buy pre-order is to have 4.1 license? So, 4.2 isn't allowed? because I have purchased the full version years ago. $175.00 plus upgrades, so nothing for us 4.2 guys? or is 4.1, actually 4.2?

 

I'm on the same boat as the OP, and from what I gathered here is...if I wanted to pre-order  4.3, I need to choose the "Classic" license and choose "Upgrade License from version 4.1".

Somehow I was confused between this option and the secondary license option, perhaps from wording or vague memory of previous purchases at $25.

 

4.3 is available for pre-order now at the eSim website, folks, if you're so inclined. I just found out about its availability and I just might bite. I don't recall pre-orders in the past, is this a new thing or just my memory failing me yet again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess I'll jump on the dog pile.

 

I think people get used to mainstream games and start to forget that military simulators are a niche of a niche of a niche. There just isn't a lot of customers and not a lot of competition. Everyone loves capitalism until it doesn't benefit them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The case was made that DCS is "as military" and "as hardcore" as Steel Beasts, and yet has a different business model where airplanes are sold separately, so why not with us. On the face of it the argument has merit, it's just that if we use the number of Youtube channel subscribers as a proxy for sales numbers (which we don't know), Eagle Dynamics has about 70 times more subscibers/consumer customers than Steel Beasts has. The number of customers cannot be ignored when it comes to the questions of the viability of a business model. Military simulations aren't the same just because of the general topic. There's flight simulations - a small genre by computer game dimensions, but still a genre. And then there's highly specialized individual titles like Steel Beasts, and potentially GHPC (which is sufficiently similar in topic and style, if not tactical depth). Let's see if GHPC is still on the market in four years and what their sales numbers are (if we can make an estimate), and what kind of business model they can make of it. The little I'm hearing from their devs is that they are, mentality wise, about as old school as eSIm Games in that they think of "expansion packs" and new theathers rather than selling their tanks individually. Maybe Steam allows them to grow their fan base to make it a sustainable venture, I wish them all the luck of the world for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Simcoe said:

I think people get used to mainstream games and start to forget that military simulators are...

What I find hilarious is the term "military simulator". Whenever I see someone refer to a GAME as a military simulator I cringe hard.

 

1. What is a "military simulator" ? What does that even mean? 

 

2. Most of those people have never used real simulator software, and are talking out of their butts.

 

3. simulation software used by militaries are extremely boring, not meant to be "played", and in most cases aren't "played". Simulation software is used to determine the output of a specific instance. Most higher level simulations I've used in exercises can only be operated by trained contractors....and definitely aren't fun to look at. 

 

4. I took a Training With Simulations course with Dr James Sterret and in his first lessons he uses Battlefield 2 as the basis for discussion....his point is that any software can be used to "simulate". simulation is a VERB and not a noun.

 

5. Can we please stop referring to games like SB and DCS as "simulators". They are games, and very few people here are using them as true simulation software. When people start drooling on themselves and calling these games simulators it just makes the community seem arrogant, the same reason why a high percent of people show up on my Discord and are hesitant to buy SB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree:

Simulation software is used to determine the output of a specific instance.

 

Not in my experience, they have been used to train troops on sop's (standard Operating Procedures). The confirmation on the unit under going training. IE: does this unit carryout their stated SOP or is more trg required. This can be used in a small unit, or large scale SOP's to a given tasks to preform. I have never seen any simulation software used  to determine anything other than the units adhering to their SOPs, as stated in their orders.

 As a operator in such training my task was to read both the units SOPs, and then their orders, then in the AAR state where they deviated, and where improvements would be required. Unit leaders would then review their performance pertaining to their understanding of both , then make the necessary adjustments.

 

 SB and DCS as "simulators". They are games

Most people in and out of the military see a games VS sims as point , badges, rank or earned status type of software.

 

There , as you know none of this in Sb, only here in the forum.

 

And yes they are boring, sleeping on the floor in the SIMNET is not all that fun, however most tasks within the army are also, IE  "hurry up and wait" or as my friends in the 10th Mountain say "the suck" The UCOF is a better example of a simulator in my view.

 

Your country may use them differently than others, some may comment on their use of such software.

 so we get a overview, and not a small sampling of views.

 

And I will continue to refer to SB as a Sim. Free speech and all..:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:

I have never seen any simulation software used  to determine anything other than the units adhering to their SOPs, as stated in their orders.

Sounds like y'all use less simulation software than the US Army. There are plenty of simulated exercises focused on more than testing if units follow their SOPs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To the extent that eSim Games speaks of Steel Beasts being "a sim, not a game", it's made to manage the expectations of people who want to play a tank game purely for entertainment purposes  - and not to open or to enter a dick swinging contest.

 

Human speech and language is malleable and highly context-sensitive. I know that some people can't wrap their heads around that fact, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experience as flyer is just with aviation simulators. There are many types of simulation levels each level targeted to simulate "specific" elements (procedures, systems learning...) being the Level D or full flight simulators the ones that get you to the closest possible flying experience that you can get interfacing with a machine in the ground.

However all of the other non Level D are as well considered simulators if they meet the target to reproduce the necesary enviroment or conditions to facilitate the learning objective.

 

Probably the word simulator itself should be reviewed due to the tremendous advances of technology and the huge ammount of options available today.

Steel Beasts is used by a number of militaries as a training tool that simulates, armour, ballistics, and some of the significant vehicle systems while providing a combat enviroment that allows effective tranining to be performed.

I have talked with some "profesional " users of Steel Beast Pro and of course for them this software is a training and checking tool. They get trainned and also checked and graded in excercises, and the same that happens to me when I regularly have to climb into an aircraft Level D simulator, neither is fun or entertaiment but work, many times hard and stressful work.

 

So all comes to what do you call a simulator. A professional Level D simulator can also be used for entertaiment and purposes (if you are willing to pay the more tham 1000 euro pero hour "in the box" )

 

Since I am not a professional tanker, I use Steel Beast Pro PE as an entertaiment tool but also as a learning tool and if I compare it with other PC Titles available to the public, I like to call SB a simulator in his own right.

 

By the way I have just pre-ordered 4.3 😃

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in my view a game means that there are opposing interests or adverse factors to a goal - in doesn't have to be fun nor intended to be just as a simulator does not have to be fun, nor intended to be (office politics or election politics can be a kind of 'game;' the 'word association game' thread in the ground zero forum isn't really a game in the strict sense, there is no way to win or lose, but i understand why it is a 'game' in the context of being lighthearted fun).

 

in game theory there are scenarios which can be run to test for particular outcomes- in a sense they might be a simulator of some kind, but as games they are not fun, nor intended to be fun, but they may be interesting because they have wider applications and insights into the way human systems might operate and we might learn something from it, i.e., running variations of the prisoner's dilemma to gauge when short term strategies are an advantage or where they begin to break down and long term strategies begin to develop.

 

a simulator may or may not be a game: you could simulate most or all of the functions of an armored fighting vehicle, but there are no targets nor opponents which shoot back. not really a game until you add those elements or perhaps a timer to negotiate obstacles or hit targets for score. there has to be some kind of opponent or adverse condition to be a 'game'- again you might add those elements, but it still may not be fun.

 

 there are simulators which have no human players, and they are more or less 'automatic,' because of what they do, although parameters can be tweaked by human operators and re-run. scientists may use a simulator to run tests of molecular behavior going far beyond anything most people have interest in or the education and knowledge to comprehend. nothing fun about it, but it has interest for those kinds of people.

 

you could design a simulator meant to be a game, and meant to be fun, but your concept may be lousy to begin with or fails in execution- i.e., maybe a paint the fence simulator. has enough elements to be a game ( maybe wind and sun drying 'opponents', bugs that land on the wet paint, or time constraints). sounds dumb on the face of it, but they add some 'gamey' elements to it or add some kind of addictive play mechanic to it, which may be a hit with a casual audience.

 

the distinction between simulator and game are sometimes interchangeable, sometimes not, i think in general most people know what you are talking about when in the context of the conversation to use either one interchangeably on this board and or boards devoted to those other pieces of software, and of course you get the occasional dispute.

 

my take is that steel beasts and DCS are both simulators and games. it doesn't bother me if you use them interchangeably. i think what tends to happen is when someone either comes trolling or makes some objection such as, "why doesn't steel beasts do x, war thunder has feature x,"then it might happen someone will say, "well, steel beasts is a simulator, war thunder is a game, therefore, steel beasts doesn't do x because it is 'gamey' " and so on. then it might become a battle of parsing their terms and where you tend to see that.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Captain_Colossus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mirzayev said:

Sounds like y'all use less simulation software than the US Army. There are plenty of simulated exercises focused on more than testing if units follow their SOPs.

Correct. I used less simulation software than the US Army. Posted only my MOS as to stay on subject (mech warfare).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

in my view a game means that there are opposing interests or adverse factors to a goal - in doesn't have to be fun nor intended to be just as a simulator does not have to be fun, nor intended to be (office politics or election politics can be a kind of 'game;' the 'word association game' thread in the ground zero forum isn't really a game in the strict sense, there is no way to win or lose, but i understand why it is a 'game' in the context of being lighthearted fun).

 

in game theory there are scenarios which can be run to test for particular outcomes- in a sense they might be a simulator of some kind, but as games they are not fun, nor intended to be fun, but they may be interesting because they have wider applications and insights into the way human systems might operate and we might learn something from it, i.e., running variations of the prisoner's dilemma to gauge when short term strategies are an advantage or where they begin to break down and long term strategies begin to develop.

 

a simulator may or may not be a game: you could simulate most or all of the functions of an armored fighting vehicle, but there are no targets nor opponents which shoot back. not really a game until you add those elements or perhaps a timer to negotiate obstacles or hit targets for score. there has to be some kind of opponent or adverse condition to be a 'game'- again you might add those elements, but it still may not be fun.

 

 there are simulators which have no human players, and they are more or less 'automatic,' because of what they do, although parameters can be tweaked by human operators and re-run. scientists may use a simulator to run tests of molecular behavior going far beyond anything most people have interest in or the education and knowledge to comprehend. nothing fun about it, but it has interest for those kinds of people.

 

you could design a simulator meant to be a game, and meant to be fun, but your concept may be lousy to begin with or fails in execution- i.e., maybe a paint the fence simulator. has enough elements to be a game ( maybe wind and sun drying 'opponents', bugs that land on the wet paint, or time constraints). sounds dumb on the face of it, but they add some 'gamey' elements to it or add some kind of addictive play mechanic to it, which may be a hit with a casual audience.

 

the distinction between simulator and game are sometimes interchangeable, sometimes not, i think in general most people know what you are talking about when in the context of the conversation to use either one interchangeably on this board and or boards devoted to those other pieces of software, and of course you get the occasional dispute.

 

my take is that steel beasts and DCS are both simulators and games. it doesn't bother me if you use them interchangeably. i think what tends to happen is when someone either comes trolling or makes some objection such as, "why doesn't steel beasts do x, war thunder has feature x,"then it might happen someone will say, "well, steel beasts is a simulator, war thunder is a game, therefore, steel beasts doesn't do x because it is 'gamey' " and so on. then it might become a battle of parsing their terms and where you tend to see that.

 

 

 

 

I concur. 

There is a place in simulation where both the operator, and the human taking place in military training that falls into a narrow lane.

 

I have stated that the US army's  gunnery simulator, we use the German type for our Leopards, there are others. Strictly gunnery with not much else, no multi-units, other humans other than those involved in gunnery procedures training.

 

To me, and others who have trained on such systems, there is no dough this is not a GAME.

https://www.dvidshub.net/image/3888659/2-69-ar-advanced-gunnery-training-simulator

 

This type of exposure to simulations has formed my view point, that being said..............

 

I can see how the definitions blend into each other though :)

 

Edited by 12Alfa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well.. the eternal discussion of games vs simulation.

 

Simulation is anything that mimics the real world without any history or gameplay feature. And a game is something that the main feature is to entertain the player but with his participation (if not, is a movie or book.. and even books that you decide where to go next we could call them "games")

 

In this world, simulation "drinks" from games, and games "drinks" from simulation. But almost all the sims that are in the market for the public have some kind of gameplay to entertain.

 

X-Plane: If you buy a usb connector, it can be used and certified as hours in simulation for real pilots at their homes. I think it is the only real simulator that offers that feature to home players. Apart from that, home people can use it to build prototypes of planes to be built later and certified in its wing tunnel simulation.

 

SteelBeasts pro PE: Maybe a real army person can train with it at his home. But I don't know if that would be "legal" in terms of the army he is working for. So all those as I think, noone at home can buy a professional version of STeelBeasts (maybe I am totally wrong) then SB is just a game with high simulation features, but most of the real numbers of munition speed, penetration I suppose (again can be wrong) are modified from the real numbers to not allow spy from other armies.

 

DCS is a game with high programming in simulation, but most things invented. The things that are desclassified, they are allowed, but the main gameplay is centered in multiplayer an single player campaigns with deep voice acting. Telling an history. Entertaining.

 

Run8 is a deep physics simulation of transport trains in the USA, which also simulates the industrial jobs in the country. It doesn't have any mission or campaign, so it is just a sandbox where people can produce their jobs so playability. It is hard played by real rail professionals.

 

Silent Hunter with Wolves of Steel, is a deep simulation of ww2 submarines, including an enigma machine, where of course noone is going to train anything now..

 

RFactor2 simulates the best tyre physics in all racing simulators and the scanned tracks can mimic the same times the real cars make. 

 

CMANO is sold to the real armies of the world (as SB do) to simulate real battles with all the assets the countries implied would have. It has a PE as SteelBeast where the database is modified from the real one, and has tons of campaigns and missions officially released by the team of CMANO. I think Command modern operations is the closest we could compare SB with, as it does not have a great number of people playing, but they are very hard core players. The initial price is very steep also (90$ or so) but it is a real only once payment as any change in the game is always free. Of course they did a paywared v2 version from CMANO to CMO, but they put at 25$ upgrade. What they do to fund themselves is sell campaigns and missions. And sometimes they do a 50% discount.

This is the way I would like to see Steelbeast in.

 

What I have learned through this and other game-simulators, is that we cannot have the same "numbers" that we have in LevedD sims or whatever as they are secrets, and of course cannot mimic a millions simulator, with a 100$ one. 

In all simulators there are people that come from the area it is simulating, but that doesn't mean it is used generally as a method of being better in their works. Of course those people do, BUT the great majority of users are just people that are interested in that "world" that will NEVER EVER enter and they just want to live a second life, and the fun is just understanding and learning how things work, and learn from the professionals that play that sim as well.

But don't forget something. They are not training for anything. They are just enjoying themselves. So they are GAMING and having FUN. Serious or addult fun if you hard core simmers preffer to hear and you are starting to feel red of anger because someone called your preferred sim, a game.

 

A real simulation for home people would be for example, someone that lose his leg in an accident, uses VR to mimic the leg in his vision and calm his pain. Or sky positioning bodies to use their telescopes.... or statistic potential buyers of your product and sim future behaviours... things like that.

 

And what I have seen in all those "boring" game-simulator programs, is that they can reach a high number or not of casual players that are interested in how things work for the real world through those sims depending on the approach the companies do for them. 

For example.. Now we are watching how SB is modernizing its media approach to youtube with more TicToc videos, because anyone can see that there are a high number of users that use their Android devices to see the YT videos. That is good.. and that doesn't break at all the level of simulation SB has, but is trying to approach a younger audience with that move (maybe.. the real reasons are known by them)

BUT what eSim Games cannot say is that another way of selling his product wouldn't work, because they never tried (or at least I never saw it to try). They can think it would be totally wrong, but I love the science method, and the only way to verify it is testing. Of course changing methods is hard, as things have to be reprogrammable... but until you try, you cannot know if that would work better or not. The only way is comparing... and when I compared how DCS did things, I remember when nobody knew about DCS and we were just a few people in Lockon series. They were selling the game just as other companies did.. and of course planes had more high attraction than tanks. But if IL2 sold a good number of their tank crew.... if World of Tanks is played a lot (because it is free) and their world of warships (that I also think is boring) is well played, then maybe they did things good that can be imitated.

The real comparison will be when GHPC comes to gold and they sell it. We will see how many people they will have. I don't think too much if they do not offer multiplayer gameplay. But if they offer full MOD support, I think they will be fine.

But man.. everytime I shoot a projectile in SB I am not calculating if the numbers of speed, penetration and dispersion are right now not. I just enjoy the sensation of being in a battleground. Maybe others analize all of that. I just have FUN. 

 

But for lot of people, it denigrates, their sim is called a GAME. I don't know why there is an operations campaign of israel vs Siria (if I remember right) in SB then. I think that is to enjoy people. So SB cleartly is a Game produced by eSim GAMES. (called simulation game if you want. Most of poeple would put their hands in their head when they realize most of the tricks to preserve FPS in their simulations comes from game industry tricks. Tricks, not real simulation (of course there are real calculations)

Edited by Japo32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Japo32 said:

Steel Beasts Pro PE: Maybe a real army person can train with it at his home. But I don't know if that would be "legal" in terms of the army he is working for. So all those as I think, noone at home can buy a professional version of STeelBeasts (maybe I am totally wrong) then SB is just a game with high simulation features, but most of the real numbers of munition speed, penetration I suppose (again can be wrong) are modified from the real numbers to not allow spy from other armies.

There are no two sets of "real" and "obfuscated" parameters in SB Pro. All parameters are either from publicly disclosed figures (the art lies in the choice of which figures to believe), or "educated guesses" as described in the documentation. You are right in that you can't have the "real real" numbers to the extent that if they are classified, it would be illegal to disclose them to eSim Games to put them into an open system like Steel Beasts.

That being said, in order to achieve the desired training effect, the numbers don't have to be more accurate than they already are. And our guesses are apparently better than some people like, but they are guesses nevertheless --- and the point of our parameter sets is not to predict the threshold range X at which Tank Y  can perforate Armor Z with 95% confidence. There are better tools for that purpose. What Steel Beasts does is to paint a plausible picture of battle outcomes, and to illustrate why attacking from certain angles usually yields better results than other directions.

 

Again, we leave dick waving contests to people with fragile egos. You get a solid simulation tool from eSim Games, within the constraints of where the model is applicable. It's meant for training vehicle crews, for tactical instructions at the vehicle...battalion level, for crew procedures and for training communication skills. It's meant to do that in a way that people stay curious and want to learn more, by presenting the lessons, where possible, in an entertaining way.

 

Steel Beasts is a game if you play to win. It's a simulation if you use the sandbox functions to investigate certain tactical constellations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Steel Beasts is a game if you play to win. It's a simulation if you use the sandbox functions to investigate certain tactical constellations.

As I said, the military that test is under a simulation. But how many real military people are using PE edition compared with non-military ones, and those military are using the SB PE edition to be better in their work? For sure there will be.... but I guess TGIF and other multiplayer sessions are more to have fun than learn for the work.

Of course the Fun players, learn. Always! But that is a very important part of simulation. Have fun learning. 

 

At the end it doesn't matter between simulation or game. It is a matter of naming the product. 

What I want to tell with this, is ok.. for some people SB is a real SIM and for others is a real GAME, and both are right. When I have been complaining in the wish list is because I wish there would be more playability options in SB in future, because I don't care about real wars. In fact all would be better without machines to kill people (and I know it is an Utopia.. but I preffer to walk to that Utopia, and leave the destructions machines for games, literature or movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Japo32 said:

As I said, the military that test is under a simulation. But how many real military people are using PE edition compared with non-military ones, and those military are using the SB PE edition to be better in their work? 

 

Intetestingly, multiplayer is a *great* way to practice issuing verbal orders with graphic control measures. Can a very diverse group of players understand what you want them to do, and execute according to your intent? 

 

Anyway, I remember dragging Steel Beasts Pro PE to work and using it to train some guys in the Platoon on mounted land nav. 

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...