SB Pro PE 2.5x - News

[Koen]

I don't want a crewable T-72

Me neither.

K

[Stratos]

Maybe I didn't explained myself clearly but english is not my main language and I can have difficulties. I will try to develope it.

-Esim games If I understood correctly planned to release a payware update every six months (if possible), what I propose is:

- Make the next update the "Crewable" T-72, even If it only contains that. People like TacBat or Koen can bypass the update If they don't want the T-72. As It will contain only the T-72 they will not lose any feature.

The only problem I can see about this is that will delay for 6 months the next "general" update in the case that adding a crewable T72 costs 6 months. This is my idea, and I think it can satisfy everyone. Well maybe Esim games think different.

[Captain_Colossus]

People understand you, you communicate fine. However, we can probably only hope for two scenarios:

1) A military customer wants a T-72 in the near future and dangles a wad of cash for it

or

2) The folks at eSim are not only making a living here but are enthusiasts of the subject matter just like you and they also want it- but it will come in due time when they can squeeze it in.

It looks as though 2) is the best bet. Keep in mind I would really like to see it, too. I'm not an MP player, from what I've seen the kinds of scenarios they do don't look like my taste, they are probably more geared to balance out play mechanics so that either side has a sporting chance. A T-72 might not do well there where there is a simple parity of numbers, but then the Soviet conceptions of the general purpose breakthrough MBT were a little different than the Western role of more specialized tank killers. Finally, there is a lot of historical material to draw upon rather than a meeting engagement of 1980's-1990's first rate NATO equipment vs. Warsaw Pact. They might not be interested in it for MP purposes, but I can think of many for solo play.

If they bring it in I will be just as happy as you. But they'll do it on their time- there really is no alternative until then. It's not like we have a choice but to hope they want to play with it like any consumer would and bring it in for that reason: it simply appears as though no one else is paying for it.

[Volcano]

well since you opened the show with an unplayable challanger 2 then i really start to wonder whats so revolutionairy about this upgrade.

Stop all the blasted crying and just wait and see what's in the rest of the update. No one is forcing you to pay for the update, and if you don't like it then move on (it is the natural way of things) I just don't see what the point of all this is if you can't even wait to see whats in the rest of it.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Volcano
clarification

[Volcano]

I better forget about this T72 story, from the beginning it was a marketting strategy that worked very well in my case. Very sad.

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. If you think that there is no one but you that wants a playable T-72, then think again. Everyone, including the people working on SB, wants a playable T-72 -- they want a playable EVERYTHING. Why wouldn't they? And don't give yourself so much credit that eSim marketed a possible playable T-72 just to bring you and two other people on board who were apparently only buying the sim for the prospect of a playable T-72.

The reality is that it will come one day I believe, because baby steps have been taken to make such things easier. I suppose we can't get away without having to listen to the annual lack of playable T-72 and lack of moving suspension knife jabs though...

[Stratos]

I'm trying to be constructive here, sometimes I also don't know If cry or laugh when I see such a defense of Esim, I'm not trying to destroy them simply want things to happen. Apreciatte the post of Captain Colossus.

[Eisenschwein]

Me neither.

K

Dito

For what reason we need a crewable T 72 ??

What I want is: Waving Gras, A Hulla Hup Group as 3rd Party with RED Flower Rings and AI Bees.

If not I will fill this Forum with boring Posts for the next 10 Years.

[Grenny]

I would like to point out an other thing.

There are quiete a few different "sects" here with SBpro...(as the poll by Dr Device has shown)

Some like single-player more...and rigth:OPFOR vehicles make fun there!!

I on the other hand prefer other things that help me train of few things I need IRL: Giving orders to humans in a way that is understandable. Works only in MP 8-)

There a playable T-xx doesn't make a lot of sense.

At one point the issues with the T-tanks should be adressed! Right now I see them of no interesst to the mil customer...and only of interesst to a part of us.

I wouldn't act any different than e-sim does!

[Crusty]

Dito

For what reason we need a crewable T 72 ??

What I want is: Waving Gras, A Hulla Hup Group as 3rd Party with RED Flower Rings and AI Bees.

If not I will fill this Forum with boring Posts for the next 10 Years.

Nice one, LMAO :biggrin:

[Captain_Colossus]

Dito

For what reason we need a crewable T 72 ??

What I want is: Waving Gras, A Hulla Hup Group as 3rd Party with RED Flower Rings and AI Bees.

If not I will fill this Forum with boring Posts for the next 10 Years.

It's not a matter of need but of strongly desire- I don't need SB Pro PE at all. I like playing with it though.

In reality the platoon or company level scenario might not make the best case for a T-72, that is, the scope of SB PRO PE when classic Red maneuver elements may have been regiment or division strength- certainly you won't experience what it feels like to have the weight of two Warsaw Pact corps thrown at you in SB Pro. In that respect, I think that people sometimes assign to much artillery support to Red units in these scenarios, typically, a platoon or company of red tanks wouldn't be getting that much artillery at all. Still, there they are.

However, again, there are scenarios that are realistically possible and still quite playable within the scope of SB Pro's focus- for example, a phase of operations exploiting a breakthrough, not necessarily meeting with the main body of resistance but running into second or third readiness echelons and reserve units, HQ units, support groups and so on- which the T-72 was designed for. These tanks carried a lethal HE mix and as such were expected to use them in the Soviet concept of 'deep pursuit' or 'deep battle' without the same expectation of support that Western troops got in artillery-small units were expected to operate independently far behind the front lines in enemy territory without much expectation of support, whereas the huge red artillery advantage was more experienced at the front level rather at the platoon level. There's a somewhat different concept as to their mission goals and design philosophy reflecting that. It brings its own challenges and rewards.

[mpow66m]

We re gonna have little bees flying around in the Sim now?Thats gotta hurt the frame rate?

[sabot_ready]

I want a T-134.... I don't know what it is or if there is even one....but I want it! I will wait for it for 6 months and if not... I am done!:biggrin:

[ashdivay]

Dito

For what reason we need a crewable T 72 ??

What I want is: Waving Gras, A Hulla Hup Group as 3rd Party with RED Flower Rings and AI Bees.

If not I will fill this Forum with boring Posts for the next 10 Years.

lol Good one.

List of my demands -

1.I want bikes (Harley's,Royal Enfields, Yamaha , Suzuki etc)

2.I want Indian Restaurant. with a Sunday curry special dish.

3.I want BAR, so i can get drunk after reading the bickering on here.

Above will make my life easy on SB. kindly make it happen caus we customer are GOD and we are always right.

[Ssnake]

I can't imagine how hard is to add a gunner for the T72 (with a gunner I'm more than happy) that can't be made in all this time, how much time can represent? a month, two? ok, stop all the other stuff (gamey stuff, no military stuff) and fix on this thing for a month or two

You may not believe me, but since 2006 we never had this "one month". Al probably took about one week of holidays in each of those last four years. Adding the Challenger was really cheap because it involved only about an hour of Al's programming time to add it in (and most of that was spent on tweaking the ballistic parameters to get the new ammo right). It's been even less work for him to add the M113A1, or the Ural.

We did spend two weeks this year, and probably one week last year in total, on the scripting tool to make this boost in productivity happen. We added 20 new vehicles in the past two months, all of which will make it into the new version, of which you know three now. So the question is, given the choice between such a scripting tool to boost overall productivity of the team, or a playable T-72, which one do you prefer?

On the one hand another playable vehicle which is inferior in pretty much any tactical situation in which you would put it, except when going against Leopard 1s - and on the other, a tool which will change forever the way and the speed with which we can add new vehicle models. To me, I didn't even have to think more than an eyeblink to decide that improving our productivity would clearly outweigh the addition of a playable T-72.

Think of this: The scripting tool now takes off some workload from Al so that he can shift his attention from managing stupid model file import to more worthy elements - 3D characters, or maybe even a playable T-72.

[Yskonyn]

Think of this: The scripting tool now takes off some workload from Al so that he can shift his attention from managing stupid model file import to more worthy elements - 3D characters, or maybe even a playable T-72.

Amen!

[[panzer]]

For what reason we need a crewable T 72 ??

No surprise to hear that coming from som1 that plays Leos and Leos only.

[Ssnake]

Enough of this, where's my daily update?

In the gallery, as usual.

[oscar19681]

Those new buildings do look nice i have to admit. It gives a little bit of the feelind arma2 has when in an urban envirement. I was wondering. Can infantry now also fire from the highest level in these buildings? Or can they not be entered by infantry at all.

[Volcano]

Those new buildings do look nice i have to admit. It gives a little bit of the feelind arma2 has when in an urban envirement. I was wondering. Can infantry now also fire from the highest level in these buildings? Or can they not be entered by infantry at all.

Yes, they can go in them, just like every other building, and they can fire from the upper floors too, as well as the middle and lower floors. These buildings are essentially the deadliest structures to AFVs, since if you get in an area of them then you can expect RPGs to come flying at your from three dimensions.

[Captain_Colossus]

Very nice.

[Kilo60]

Think of this: The scripting tool now takes off some workload from Al so that he can shift his attention from managing stupid model file import to more worthy elements - 3D characters, or maybe even a playable T-72.

Does this mean Real Time "Shadows" are on the Horizon...???

Those apt bldgs look great but are screaming for some shadow shading.

[Tacbat]

We added 20 new vehicles in the past two months, all of which will make it into the new version...

Ho-ly crap!

[Tacbat]

In the gallery, as usual.

That's a lot of new high-rise buildings. Even some street lights in there too. I'm sure most SB map makers are half-chubbed right now.

[3Star]

That's a lot of new high-rise buildings. Even some street lights in there too. I'm sure most SB map makers are half-chubbed right now.

Meanwhile, my graphics card is fainting...

NTM

[Retro]

I guess the sim treats streetlights similar to trees?