Jump to content

The List poll


oscar19681

What feature would you like to see the most  

110 members have voted

  1. 1. What feature would you like to see the most

    • suspension
      5
    • weather
      11
    • playable russian equipment (t-72 t-80 etc etc)
      43
    • night vision goggles
      2
    • 3-d infantry
      7
    • playable infantry
      6
    • more 3-d objects for the editor
      9
    • challenger 2
      17
    • campaign option
      10
    • 3-d tank crew
      3


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

So far its a landslide for playable russian equipment.

I guess the western world cant get enough Vodka! The greatest russian export, at least till they figure out what to do with all those tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed it seems that a playable t-72 or something in that line is the most wanted so far. Kind of strange if you consider the fact that its being kept from sbp just because no customer has requested it to be implemented so far.

I'm a customer, I'm requesting it please.....

yer like thats gona' work

By customer you mean big budget, big spending military client. I think we should all chip in and pay esims to release the t-72 in short order. Come on Ssnake, what you sayin? how much for the t-72? two camels and a bowl of goats testes.

Seriously though Ssnake I think I have asked this before without response, but is there any way that we as a community can actually put in a formal request for paid content rather than relying on the increasingly small budgeted armies to cough up for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just had a thought...

All along the plan was to release SB Pro PE to 'military types' and enthusiasts, followed by SB2 for home entertainment.

Well, when SB2 is finally launched surely there will be the option to play from the other side. No 'game' of tank warfare has ever been one-sided. You have the option to play as the UK, US, German, Russian etc. in all theatres of war.

So it begs the question: If no military is willing to cough up the cash for a T-72, T-80 etc., why announce (some time ago), the future release of SB2?

As a commercial 'entertainment' game, SB2 would need Russian equipment to allow gamers to play both sides, perhaps in online head-to-head engagements like most games on the market now.

The fact that SB2 was planned for the mass market, do some 'playable' Russian models already exist ahead of its planned release?

I for one, would love to see playable Russian equipment in SB Pro. :)

Following on from Fidel's post, as we are the 'customers' for the commercial release of SB Pro PE, is there any way we could fund this?

Quagmire

PS - This post isn't meant as a dig at eSim et al, but I would like to know if its possible to expand SB Pro as per customers requests, and not just when the military ask for it.

EDIT - @ Oscar - one more thing for your poll list: Shadows :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously though Ssnake I think I have asked this before without response, but is there any way that we as a community can actually put in a formal request for paid content rather than relying on the increasingly small budgeted armies to cough up for it?

Yes, but a formal request would be trumped by contractual obligations which compel them to deliver content on schedule, or quite simply economic realities would stem the against a deluge of less lucrative community support. It's not likely the community could pony up the kind of money that would represent the money lost in diverting attention away from institutional requests for certain things, that is, if those contracts aren't interested in T-72s for this reason or that.

The real question is not whether you can ask, but whether they can fulfill our request without significantly impacting their business model, their reputation, or control of their goals. Simply suggesting to hire more staff is easier said than done, it's not something that would occur to them as a novel idea that they never thought of before, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oscar, how were you able to vote for suspension twice? :biggrin:

SB2....T-72. i'd bet money on it. think about it -- pro PE is for the commercial customers' personal use and for military enthusiasts, as stated before. given that, why would they add russian equipment? as for reasons for its inclusion in SB2, that's well explained by Quagmire there. he just forgot to point out, "why would include it in PE without a military customer?" we'll all buy SB2, so they have us there. I, for one, would rather have it in PE, since SB2 will be "dumbed down" a bit (lack of some of the auxillary units and abilities we have in PE from what i gather). ;)

.02 going back to my cave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oscar, how were you able to vote for suspension twice? :biggrin:

SB2....T-72. i'd bet money on it. think about it -- pro PE is for the commercial customers' personal use and for military enthusiasts, as stated before. given that, why would they add russian equipment? as for reasons for its inclusion in SB2, that's well explained by Quagmire there. he just forgot to point out, "why would include it in PE without a military customer?" we'll all buy SB2, so they have us there. I, for one, would rather have it in PE, since SB2 will be "dumbed down" a bit (lack of some of the auxillary units and abilities we have in PE from what i gather). ;)

.02 going back to my cave.

I really doubt the fact if there ever is gonna be an SB2. And if we do by the time it comes out i bet there will be other modern tank sims so that kind of gives you an indication how long it would take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At any rate, SB2 is probably a long ways off- I understand why people want to see certain kinds of content now. And with other things that are probably more 'important' with respect to facilitate simulation- such as more realistic man made structures and urban areas modeled with greater fidelity, I still think that while smoke and environmental effects have nicely been updated, this is still an area that all computer programs still don't have enough of to the extent that defense meteorological satellite programs such as DMSP are in place to predict weather conditions and such. Things need to burn and scatter smoke more, not so much purely for the eye candy department, but to affect movement snd spotting, so that equipment without first rate TIS equipment are more outclassed by units which have them.

On the other hand, I would almost intuit that T-72 should have made it into SB Pro on the assumption that human controlled OPFOR would provide a different basis than computer controlled units, which are either not as flexible. Be that as it may, it's evidently not a priority.

Having said that, I think in some respects an SB 2 would conceivably be superior to SB Pro without sacrificing important details which would turn it into a Battlefield 2 or something. This would be the product that comes from a longer learning curve and development time, and more attention on things which require more eye candy which affects performance, rather than a more bare bones presentation that's good enough for government work. It depends on design philosophy and the target audience though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Oscar, if you had actually turned up at ITEC, you could have spoken directly with Nils, and Al. Instead you seem to have spent the week posting crap about not being able to purchase the update because *NILS and AL are at ITEC*, moaning again about suspension and T72s, the endlessness of the list, which you haven't actually any knowledge of, or any concept of eSim's real priorities.

Now you are off on one, about how SB2 may take some time.

Well, guess what - a toy, even the best one in the world, is less important than effective training tools for people about to go into harms' way - and while SB Pro is being actively developed in response to this training requirement SB2 'the game' is likely to see little or no active development (although most of the training relevant stuff is also relevant to constructive simulation, and therefore should improve the currently available SB Pro PE, and any future development of SB2).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assumptions are one thing- assumptions informed from a poor basis are another. Despite the cliche about assumptions, they are necessary, it turns out, or no one should bother getting out of bed in the morning knowing that only death and taxes are certain. One lives one's life based on far more assumptions than certainty, or information than one has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Oscar, if you had actually turned up at ITEC, you could have spoken directly with Nils, and Al. Instead you seem to have spent the week posting crap about not being able to purchase the update because *NILS and AL are at ITEC*, moaning again about suspension and T72s, the endlessness of the list, which you haven't actually any knowledge of, or any concept of eSim's real priorities.

Now you are off on one, about how SB2 may take some time.

Well, guess what - a toy, even the best one in the world, is less important than effective training tools for people about to go into harms' way - and while SB Pro is being actively developed in response to this training requirement SB2 'the game' is likely to see little or no active development (although most of the training relevant stuff is also relevant to constructive simulation, and therefore should improve the currently available SB Pro PE, and any future development of SB2).

Well hold your horses there mister. I planned to go to itec but as i explained to nils i had sudden onforeseen high costs that i needed to pay for my education and there was no other way to pay it then to use the money i had set aside for ITEC and believe me a couple of days in brussels isnt cheap and i feel really bad to miss out on it. So i had to make a desision and my education is important becuase it ultimetly will pay my bills and you make it seem like i just didnt feel like showing up? I thinks thats pretty low .Whats this about posting crap about suspension and t-72,s while i merely making a poll to see what OTHER people would like to see in the future? I wanted to order the update and i just wanted to be sure when i could order it. I may post what i want i dont need you to acuse me of just not showing up show up and posting crap on the forums. If you dont know what your talking about then please shut up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, this isn't isolated, every few months you are posting about how we need bobbing road wheels, new vehicles - you even managed to post about the 'next' update before the last one was shipped.

Ok, you couldn't make ITEC, pity I think you'd have enjoyed it... but this constant bleating about the same things you'd like to see is bloody boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, this isn't isolated, every few months you are posting about how we need bobbing road wheels, new vehicles - you even managed to post about the 'next' update before the last one was shipped.

Ok, you couldn't make ITEC, pity I think you'd have enjoyed it... but this constant bleating about the same things you'd like to see is bloody boring.

Your overreacting now. I havent made a post about suspension for ages and i never started a t-72 thread. The post about the next update was to see what might be in store in the future. If my posts bother you in any way then just ignore them! You dont have to be asshole about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Indeed it seems that a playable t-72 or something in that line is the most wanted so far. Kind of strange if you consider the fact that its being kept from sbp just because no customer has requested it to be implemented so far.

Coming late to the topic, I have to say though that this is an incorrect summary of the situation. We are facing - for the past three years - an overload of development requests by army customers which, as they are contractual obligations and bring in 90% of the profit, are quite naturally taking priority. There are essentially three possible solutions,

  1. an army ordering a playable T-xx (could still happen)
  2. no army ordering anything from us for an extended period (won't happen, hopefully)
  3. an expansion of development capacity (the most likely course of events, although I suspect that much of this additional workpower will happily gobbled up by bigger/more army development contracts)

If there is an opportunity, we will take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
All along the plan was to release SB Pro PE to 'military types' and enthusiasts, followed by SB2 for home entertainment.

Well, when SB2 is finally launched surely there will be the option to play from the other side. No 'game' of tank warfare has ever been one-sided. You have the option to play as the UK, US, German, Russian etc. in all theatres of war.

So it begs the question: If no military is willing to cough up the cash for a T-72, T-80 etc., why announce (some time ago), the future release of SB2?

At that time it was unknown whether the armies' interest was just a transient phenomenon, or whether it could actually be the fundament of a lasting business. We thought that maybe it would be just one or two developments for one or two armies in which case SB2 would have been a logical project to follow in times of underemployment. Depending on one's perspective it is quite fortunate (or not) that this recession of army interest never happened.

Today and in hindsight it seems like a no-brainer that armies would seize this opportunity to reduce the development costs and investment volume as well as reduce operating costs of simulator-assisted training. Well, OK, it always appeared as a no-brainer to me. Yet armies have no consistent history of always making sound and rational decisions, and changing plans to adapt to a dynamic business environment.

At the same time it has always been a substantial personal risk to Al and me to place our bets on a single horse. It worked out so far, and we're happy about it, but essentially both of us forfeited the chances of a normal job career this way, so you'll have to accept our decisions to mitigate our personal risks in making business decisions. We both tend to be rather careful and maybe sometimes a bit too conservative in our decisions about eSim's business strategy.

Maybe it could have worked out like it did for Bohemia with Operation Flashpoint/ArmA and VBS/VBS-2. They invested every penny they made into expanding their development capacity, and now the US and UK armies have each bought a "golden license" (=the right for unlimited use of VBS-2) and paid a substantial amount of money. So, congratulations, it worked out quite well for them too. Fewer people know or still remember that there was a period where they were very close to bankruptcy (they certainly no longer are), so if another company had followed a similarly aggressive strategy it may very well be that one of them would have failed to secure the one deal that saved them. Even if it had worked out for two companies with similar strategies and products there still remains the question who of the top executives in both companies are happier with their lives and how work changed for them.

I for one do not regret the choices that we made.

Unfortunately that means that I have to accept the fact that SB2 is becoming less and less likely the longer we have to keep its development suspended.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...