A little suggestion to esim for their commercial SB Pro PE

[[]_--__[]KITT]

After missing the two upgrades I came into realization that even with the upgrades SB Pro PE is still below my expectation.

I'd throw another hundred bucks or even another US$125.00 if Esim would give SB Pro PE the following with at least 2 of the optional being realized:

1. Playable Challenger 2

2. Playable T72

3. Playable Le-Clerc(optional)

4. Playable T55(optional)

5. Playable T62(optional)

6. Playable T80(optional)

7. Playable T90(optional, preferred)

8. BMP-3 in game as AI controlled

9. T90 in game if not playable as AI controlled.

10. Playable Leopard 2A6

11. [At least] Twice the size of the current map becoming playable

12. At least 2 years(24 months) down the road free support(patches and upgrades)

and

at least 5 more scenarios for every one new playable platform.

Pls stop treating SB Pro PE like a second line and actually give us what we want instead prioritizing the defense agencies all the time. Call it an expansion or SB Pro PE Gold or whatever.

How's that :biggrin:

Edit: seems Leo2A6 is already on the plate so that(point 10) could be ignored.

[Gibsonm]

Except of course the Defence people provide the biggest slice of their income so it sort of makes sense for them to keep them happy as a priority (after all you enjoy the flow on benefits for next to no charge).

[[]_--__[]KITT]

Except of course the Defence people provide the biggest slice of their income so it sort of makes sense for them to keep them happy as a priority (after all you enjoy the flow on benefits for next to no charge.

Next to no charge? Well for one Esim is now charging for upgrades so that point is no longer valid.

I do not want to pay for upgrades that I have little interest in. I'd pay quadruple or five times that for the points above .

[Volcano]

_--__[]KITT;190197']Next to no charge? Well for one Esim is now charging for upgrades so that point is no longer valid.

He means $25... for some it is next to nothing, to others it is what puts food on the table and is necessary for survival. Yes, all the arguments have been vented about it.

We can pretty much assume that everyone wants every armored vehicle in the world to be playable -- so does eSim and everyone else around here.

[Grenny]

The point is that the a LOT of people have to pay 125$ to top the sums some MoDs are paying to include what they like ;-)

Also I doubt the 25$ we paid for the last upgrade realy financed the content.

But even considered that f.e. the danish MoD paid for most of the recent content...Why should e-sim hand it out for free (to us)?

[Gibsonm]

_--__[]KITT;190197']Next to no charge? Well for one Esim is now charging for upgrades so that point is no longer valid.

I do not want to pay for upgrades that I have little interest in. I'd pay quadruple or five times that for the points above .

Well given that Defence departments pay many thousands to get these things in' date=' I think US$25 for an individual is yes relatively speaking “next to nothing”.

Of course $25 on the personal scale maybe a lot or not much and presumably that influences if they can afford to pay for it or not.

_--__[]KITT;190197']I do not want to pay for upgrades that I have little interest in.

Fine then save your money and don’t or wait until several upgrades come out and update then as it appears you are doing now from 2.370 beta to 2.546.

[[]_--__[]KITT]

Fine then save your money and don’t or wait until several upgrades come out and update then as it appears you are doing now from 2.370 beta to 2.546.

I don't know how long I need to wait to get an OPFOR tank to be playable.

I really would fork another 125 for the points above. :rolleyes:

Judging how things moving I'd have to wait at least another decade :bangin:

I mean I'm not that interested in the Centauro . . . .would rather have 2 OPFOR tanks to be playable.

But if terrorists were to start using tanks I'd say in 2 years LOL. I hope somebody starts selling them those.

[Gibsonm]

The problem is as I mentioned that the military users drive this stuff.

“We“ (the Australian Army) have ASLAV and Bushmaster so we forked over the $ and they were developed.

“We” don’t care about a T-72 apart from it acting like an intelligent target with the “right” performance/protection/gunnery features so we wont pay to make it crewable.

I’m not here to train T-72 crewman but Australian crewman and people who potentially may encounter T-72 in the battlespace (either as a coalition partner or as the opposition).

A T-72 user nation probably has to foot that bill.

Same thing applies to Challenger 2.

If this was “just” a game company (driven by “if we model this, we’ll sell X thousand more copies“) then I’m certain that a T-72 would be there before say a CV90, let alone an ASLAV.

Its no accident that almost all of the crewable vehicles are the current vehicles of the user countries who finance their inclusion (Spain, Denmark, Australia, ...).

[Volcano]

The point is that the a LOT of people have to pay 125$ to top the sums some MoDs are paying to include what they like ;-)

Also I doubt the 25$ we paid for the last upgrade realy financed the content.

But even considered that f.e. the danish MoD paid for most of the recent content...Why should e-sim hand it out for free (to us)?

Well, no, the $25 is for the months of development time spent bringing the PE version to release; it has nothing to do with financing the content per se, but even that is not completely true. I mean, yes, you can in fact say that it DID help finance new content because, as I guess everyone has forgotten by now, the new buildings, the new Bradleys, the M1A2, M60A3 (and other things I have forgotten now) was NOT specifically requested/financed by the military. But yes, I know the arguments for that: the "new" Bradleys are not "new" because they existed before, and the other vehicles do not count because they are not playable... and various other strange bits of logic (those that believe that should tell this to the people who spent hundreds of hours working on the content). :cul:

But regardless of any of that, without a price it makes it less "attractive" to spend months of valuable development time just to put out a (hypothetically) free upgrade. And if that were so, there might be years between when an upgrade could be possible, as it would take a back seat to just about anything at that point, and it would also be less refined (think of the buggy betas). And despite what some might think, the PE version is not simply a matter of creating a PE version from the then current Pro version - just boxing it up in a file and selling it: lots of testing and work is involved.

Of course, the beauty of it is in how you look at it. If someone does not like what is in the current upgrade, as what is being insinuated here, then someone can actively choose not to get it -- no money spent. A year or two later, they want the playable Mammoth uber tank that was just added in 2011's update, then they decide to drop down $25 dollars and they get it with all the stuff they felt like they didn't want before. Of course people can believe what they want to believe, but that is always why they must also make a conscious decision to buy or hold off on a specific update.

[Ssnake]

_--__[]KITT;190195']I'd throw another hundred bucks or even another US$125.00 if Esim would give SB Pro PE the following with at least 2 of the optional being realized:

1. ...

10. Playable Leopard 2A6

...

Edit: seems Leo2A6 is already on the plate so that(point 10) could be ignored.

Are we moving goal posts, now that you realize that 50% of your minimum requirements to fork over another $125.- are fulfilled...? :roll:

Maybe you should care to really study the release notes for 2.460 and 2.538 to learn to value that you get both for just $25.-. And if I were to extrapolate the development pace from just that - one of your items every other Upgrade - it seems like you would pay only $75.- that way to get something for which you're willing to pay $125.-

I don't know about you, but that meets my definitions for a "sweet deal".

[Ssnake]

Also I doubt the 25$ we paid for the last upgrade really financed the content.

Technically, every dollar helps of course. In practice they are the price to cover the costs of producing and releasing the Personal Edition - to give you the best possible deal that we can offer without losing money on it. That may sound preposterous, as if I wanted to create the impression that we're almost a charity organization. We are not. But the PE certainly is no money machine for us. Just the preparation of a new release requires about two months of team time, or about 13% of the whole development time (assuming a 15 months release cycle). Add to that the fact that 95% of all support requests come from PE users, the costs of production and shipping, and it becomes apparent rather quickly that our profits have to come from somewhere else.

We won't give up the Personal Edition, however.

[DarkAngel]

_--__[]KITT;190195']

11. [At least] Twice the size of the current map becoming playable

Obviously from someone who hasn't even looked at the maps and the map editor. What the hell do you want?. Tell me one other ground based simulator which you can have 14400 sqr KM maps?. Or that allows 484 sqr KM available for a single mission?. Are you going to do the work to populate a 57600 sqr KM map that you want at double current size. Which of course could be populated with the 70+ new map objects that were included in the last update. Pfff.

[Grenny]

We won't give up the Personal Edition, however.

*thumbs up*

[[]_--__[]KITT]

Are we moving goal posts, now that you realize that 50% of your minimum requirements to fork over another $125.- are fulfilled...? :roll:

Maybe you should care to really study the release notes for 2.460 and 2.538 to learn to value that you get both for just $25.-. And if I were to extrapolate the development pace from just that - one of your items every other Upgrade - it seems like you would pay only $75.- that way to get something for which you're willing to pay $125.-

I don't know about you, but that meets my definitions for a "sweet deal".

I'll download the release notes

Edit:

I've read v 2.538 release notes and I don't see 50% of what I put in the first post.

I know Esim may make little money from us consumers but I was trying to make suggestion to add the things that I listed specifically for commercial end users(us) and charge us premium fee for that.

Yes I know SB Pro PE is driven by military clients but for once in a while is it possible to develop something originally developed for SB Pro PE users. I don't mind 125 bucks cost or even a little more than that.

Yes I know I can always hold from buying upgrades until I see it fulfills my certain wishes but realistically speaking there's no way Esim is going to even fulfill half of that list with the same policy of driving SB Pro PE development by deriving from SB Pro.

Last I don't mean to offend anyone from Esim nor do I mean to demean the work they've done in the upgrades. The upgrades are great! but frankly I want the items listed bad;y and no where I see the possibility of seeing them in Pro PE :-P

[[]_--__[]KITT]

Obviously from someone who hasn't even looked at the maps and the map editor. What the hell do you want?. Tell me one other ground based simulator which you can have 14400 sqr KM maps?. Or that allows 484 sqr KM available for a single mission?. Are you going to do the work to populate a 57600 sqr KM map that you want at double current size. Which of course could be populated with the 70+ new map objects that were included in the last update. Pfff.

What do you mean 484 square kilometer in single mission? That's about a little more than 20km x 20km size map which is not that large . . . . . .Would love to be able to maneuver say in a 100 km x 100 km size map for larger and a much longer mission where the players are able use long range maneuver to defeat the enemy.

[Gibsonm]

_--__[]KITT;190215']Yes I know SB Pro PE is driven by military clients but for once in a while is it possible to develop something originally developed for SB Pro PE users. I don't mind 125 bucks cost or even a little more than that.

Well that’s not quite right.

The military clients “drive” SB Pro.

The wonderful guys at eSim then take that product and convert it into SB Pro PE (Ssnake has already mentioned that that is where most of that US$25 goes).

I suspect a very large slice of what was in the 2.548 upgrade was driven more to improve the “deal” for SB Pro PE customers.

Stuff like modelling the M60 and the new M2 and M1 models (after all IIRC the US hasn’t contributed much, if anything to date) so I suspect the M2 is in there more for SB Pro PE’s benefit than SB Pro. The same applies to the other M1 models now available.

Obviously both packages benefit from the general stuff like improved terrain, more buildings, etc.

[Gibsonm]

_--__[]KITT;190218']What do you mean 484 square kilometer in single mission? That's about a little more than 20km x 20km size map which is not that large . . . . . .Would love to be able to maneuver say in a 100 km x 100 km size map for larger and a much longer mission where the players are able use long range maneuver to defeat the enemy.

Well for that you need to buy SB Pro.

[Tacbat]

Are you going to do the work to populate a 57600 sqr KM map that you want at double current size. Which of course could be populated with the 70+ new map objects that were included in the last update. Pfff.

LOL. :cul:

[Ssnake]

_--__[]KITT;190215']

I've read v 2.538 release notes and I don't see 50% of what I put in the first post.

That's not what I wrote. You said' date=' out of a list of 14 items you wanted at least two so that you'd be willing to pay five times as much as we actually charge for a regular upgrade. One of the items was a Leo 2A6, which is included in the form of a Spanish Leo 2E.

I know eSim may make little money from us consumers but I was trying to make suggestion to add the things that I listed specifically for commercial end users(us) and charge us premium fee for that.

Yes, but it wouldn't work out for us. In five years we made a total turnover with SB Pro PE that represents two typical development contracts with an Army, of which we usually tackle three per year.

Even if really everybody would buy a new copy of SB Pro PE like you say you would if only a playable T-72 and a BMP-3 were novelties in it, so it tripled our annual turnover with SB Pro PE, it would still amount to just a single normal Army contract where - unlike in the case of a playable T-72, we would actually get technical support from the army in the form of technical drawings, access to user manuals, acceptance tests, etc.

Without this, it's harder for us (=more work, more time investment) to create such a vehicle (although the case of the T-72 is comparatively simple), and at best we would make about as much profit as with a normal development contract. And all that under the most optimistic assumption that every existing SB Pro PE player was willing to fork over another $125.- for this. Which, I'm sorry to say, I just don't believe.

And it's for just a single new playable vehicle, and you wanted like five or six of them!

Mind you, I'm not saying that we won't do anything from that list. In fact, the situation is now better than ever. Since 2006 we have contemplated to hire additional programmers, and it took us until last October that we finally had the working conditions to allow us just that. Now that we have approximately doubled the workforce this gives us more flexibility to do fancy stuff for which armies won't pay.

But even without this fundamental change in conditions, I don't think that our track record of innovations is too shabby.

[Companion]

IMHO eSim really should make a thread along the line of "why eSim can't just 'simply' add random playable vehicles/features to SB" and sticky it. This kind of question/request (then frustration) will not cease as new customers emerge.

[Skybird03]

Kitt (=Castout?),

you may consider the fact that SBP was released in I think March or April 2006. In the first years, patches and upgrades were free, featuring, amongst others, the CV90 IFVs, which in other, more "gamey" titles would be considered full packages in themselves. eSim said from the beginning on that from some time on they would need to charge for any further upgrades and additional content. They started to do right that - after I think half a dozen free releases and 3 or 4 years.

I don't know when you bought SBPPE, but you sound a bit as if you see it from the perspective of somebody who just bought the full sim, and short time later sees that he is being charged again for the next available upgrade. But that perspective is a bit misleading in that you need to see the timescale of the whole developement of things since 2006. You may like it or not, but that is how things are.

As I told you over at tanksim.com (assuming you are Castout), if you want MP, you probbaly will need to upgrade to meet the version sta ndard of other players online.

At tanksim.com I have explained often enough to interested people why SBPPE is in this state and offers this content, and not any different. eSim says that not even 10% of their income is produced via the game market. Their butter and bread are their military contractors. I fear you have to live with that priority. It is a very understandable priority of theirs.

Your version 2.370 already features several, many, different vehicles you can crew, several of them, MBTs and IFVs as well, being fully modelled in their 3D interiors. That makes it already several sims in one. Would you refuse to use Falcon 4 AF just because be default it offers you just one basic fighter in three lsightly different versions, but no opposing Russian models you can crew...? Hardly. If you are intersted in that sim'S genre and copmplex avioncis, then you pick F4, no matter that just the F-16 is crewable. I think this is a healthy attitude to meet with SBP, too - even more so while it offers you already so much more than just one crewable verhicle.

However, the choice is easy. Either you want to spend 25 bucks, or you won't. No pistol at your head, nobody thinks bad of you if you don't buy it - so where is the problem?

I am sure of just one thing - "blackmailing" eSim to give you what you want, else you won't buy, will not work.

[mpow66m]

:Crash::c::bangin:

[Ssnake]

I have no problem with anyone being vocal about what he wants. It's valuable. It helps us if not as an inspiration to what we do, then at least as a reality check if we decide otherwise. I think that we have an extremely attractive development plan for this year. Things look very, very good at this point. But I won't give details yet because I just don't like to talk about our plans, rather about accomplishments.

To that extent our past performance is no longer a good estimation about our future development pace as we will see this year the results of a bigger work force combined with steps that we took to improve our productivity.

I can't promise that everybody will be happy with everything that we're about to implement this year, but I am very, confident that we will have at least one big feature improvement for pretty much anyone who has ever bought SB Pro PE, no matter where your specific preferences are.

[Skybird03]

In brief, what Ssnake said is that he does not want to water our mouths, but he already handed us the towel. :biggrin:

[DarkLabor]

_--__[]KITT;190195']Le-Clerc

:casstet: