SB IN TEN YEARS

[Marko]

Hi All

I was just thinking how far SB has come in the last ten years i owned the original version

Poor graphics but great game play.i am sure Esim have plans. but i dont want to start a Debate about what tanks should be playable.i was thinking more along the lines off possible tech upgrades such as VR. 3D.will it be more geared towards the game market or will the military Users ask for more.from what i have read they still have a lot to implement.and i think current military users will keep the guys going for a long time.but just for fun lets speculate.

i

[Pigmachine]

I like it a lot in the state it is today.. the terrain and buildings look real enough, so does the vehicles.. I remember trying out SB 1 And thought' what a dog'! Then I got into it a bit further, and found the good parts, but it sure as hell looked like a dog!

[Ssnake]

Quite honestly, I have no idea. Of course, we have general ideas about the direction that we want to take - like a river flowing downhill from the mountains into the sea. But the actual path to take is meandering, there may be forks in the stream and maybe even parts that will end as dead waters as the main stream takes a different direction.

But it's encouraging that you, too, are beginning to think that we may make it another ten years. In 2006 that may have sounded to some as an empty promise. And we just can't say whether we will still have a viable business model and market in a decade from now. I surely do hope so, and I'll fight for it, but there are no guarantees after all.

SB Pro will go where reality it going. Whatever new developments we will see in the ever changing operational picture, I'm sure SB will reflect this to some extent. At the moment everybody is focused on infantry-centric counterinsurgency operations (with tanks), hardly what SB Pro does best and for what it was originally designed. There are however the first voices to be heard that there emerges a training and capability gap with respect to high intensity combined arms operations after nearly a decade in said operations, so it may well be that the pendulum in customer demand may slowly begin to swing back to the other side.

But SB Pro will always have a focus on armored vehicles. That's what we do best, so all the changes around this center will be done to keep SB relevant as a training tool to our army customers. And in addition to it, we'd like to keep it entertaining where possible.

I think the coming release this winter will bring quite a few critical improvements as well as potentially game-changing innovations that should breathe some new life into it. Stay tuned.

[Gibsonm]

I think the coming release this winter ... Stay tuned.

Nils,

You need to stick to months.

As I said at the User Group Meeting - For me its “Autumn“ now and “Winter” starts in 8 days.

I’m guessing you aren’t shipping something on the next two weeks.

[Ssnake]

Hey, whatever you're saying, it can't be winter down under, you don't even have snow (and where's Christmas i9n your "winter", anyway? Can't have one without the other). Besides: You're the ones to drive on the wrong side of the road, have the sun culminate in the north, and to walk upside down on the ceiling. At least you have the metric system, but I suppose some from the upper hemisphere will find that irritating as well. You have the most atrocious animals down under, and you managed to somehow cope with it ... I'm sure you'll harden up, adapt, and overcome my antics.

[AKM]

...There are however the first voices to be heard that there emerges a training and capability gap with respect to high intensity combined arms operations after nearly a decade in said operations, so it may well be that the pendulum in customer demand may slowly begin to swing back to the other side...

Quite true; the Canadian Forces at least are on a "Back to Basics" push which means, in the interpretation of most higher formation commanders, a return to conventional combined arms. Where one goes others follow...

[Gibsonm]

Quite true; the Canadian Forces at least are on a "Back to Basics" push which means, in the interpretation of most higher formation commanders, a return to conventional combined arms. Where one goes others follow...

As Nils said that’s not “new”.

Whether its “Back to Basics” in Canada or “Foundation Warfighting“ (which includes Joint Land Combat) here or some other catch phrase elsewhere we are all focusing on maintaining the generalist skills for “A War” while focusing our mission specific training for “The War” (i.e. the ones we are currently engaged in).

[Marko]

I like it a lot in the state it is today.. the terrain and buildings look real enough, so does the vehicles.. I remember trying out SB 1 And thought' what a dog'! Then I got into it a bit further, and found the good parts, but it sure as hell looked like a dog!

I too like it in the state its in today.My point is like you i remember the original and how far it has progressed in evey area up to this point. in my opinion the best armoured sim around the Guys have made a top class sim with out having the massive budgets like the big companys.ie EA.codemasters.Yes the armoured warfare sim is a very small market compared to flight Sims And FPS games.But Esim has survived and many others that were a lot bigger have not.i think the reasons are as follows. constantly upgrading the product

A excellent suppot system both tech and other wise.i think most off us on this site will still be playing SB in ten years from now.the tank has been written off before by the military.

And then came back in to favour ie Gulf war 1 and 2. kosavo. the canadian millitary was going to abandon tanks all together i remember reading.then went and orderd the Leo 2.

Turkey and south korea has just ordered new tanks and IFV,s and many other nations will upgradge.modern armys will still need to train for a full sacle conventional war but wont want to spend huge amounts on real exercises. And that is why i Think Esim will still be around in ten years.As good as it is now. just think what will be Added.thats where the speculation comes in.i would like to see a 3D version even if i have To wear silly glasses.Dolby surround.voice commands.photo relistic landscapes.realtime Damage. the AI of the original was ok,now its good imagine it in ten years time.or even five for that matter.there is a hudge amount of scope for future.and if the military orders start To dry up there is plenty of room in the retail sector.

[pirabee]

Hi all,

Im speaking from the perspective of a gamer from another online game which has made waves in recent times.I speak here of WorldofTanks.It is of course WWII centred while SB is more modern,but there are tips I think I can offer which will enhance SBs chances of lasting another 10years.

Im new to this game having spent a while searching for something more contemporary.When I found SB I was over the moon,but after blundering about for a while and getting killed by invisible foes,I worried about the games playability.Of course,modern warfare allows for such incidents but other things more pertinent are lacking.For instance,shell impact is a laugh in SB.Recoil is minimal and impact of shells on players tank is almost unnoticeable.This should be worked on.In WoT,a direct hit could slew your tank so violently that for a while you suffered some disorientation.

The map looks very 21st century military,I agree,yet it leaves one feeling quite lost sometimes.Any functional map should readily allow a player identify him/herself and improve on ones sense of bearing.

Key controls and views are too complex and too many.A simplified approach may attract,more than discourage,more user/players as it nearly did me.Interestingly,toggle on/off buttons are a rarity on SB.Players need the comfort of knowing that the same button that activates a view or function is the same that reverses it.

In the same vein,manual overrides should be readily available.I did not sense that they were,though I may be wrong.

I also suggest that the over-repititive voice call-outs should be either removed or curtailed.Or better,an option should be provided to minimize its frequency or even shut it down completely.To my mind,in the interest of realism,even the lack of that annoying voice can be more satisfying than that irritating chant of "unit receiving fire"or whatever.

Finally,please,do something about damage graphics.My destroyed M1A1 looked no different from a perfectly functioning machine.I thought that was weird and in need of a reworking.SB certainly has its strong points,but if it is to attract a wider followership it needs to improve on some of its weak points as Ive attempted to highlight here.But,good work,team.

[Grenny]

@pirabee

While I agree that better damage graphic are desireable...most of the rest of your post include things that are essential for SB for what it is:A SIMULATION that tries to get as close to real life as possible..

(Yes, I'd love to see "impacts marks" on the armour. btw: if you hit the ammo bunker in many tanks types, it will NOT look like in good shape :-P )

To many bottons? If you want to operate a combat vehicle...you need that many.

You can customize your controls pretty much to your liking.

Where exactly do you miss a "toggle on/off"?

Map? Thats what a map looks like.(well, allmost) If you get lost on it => practice land navigation.

Voice:

If the same info comes offen, in short time steps...it might be comming from different units.

Impact:

Show me something that can throw around 60 tonnes violently 8-)

I find qiete ok in SB: a hit knocks your aim of for shure.

Invisible foe:

Getting killed by invisible foes is the NORM in modern day warefare...which Steelbeasts SIMULATES.

In short:

SB is SIM not a game, thats why 99% of users like it ;-)

[Sean]

How much time have you spent with this sim?

You don't need all the views on a regular basis, but I would say if you can't find where you are on a map with a icon denoting your location, then something is very wrong. Keep in mind the tank clock is also a compass.

Shell impacts knocking the tank around violently is something from hollywood, not real life. Not every impact is going to result in a violent explosion. Some will cause the barrel to droop, and some tanks that have vulnerable ammo storage will explode and the turret will fly off. It would be cool to have more animations, yes.

All I can say is give it some more time, and try not to compare it to world of tanks, which is something totally different. Everyone goes through being killed by something they cannot see and the frustration that goes along with it. Learning to use the land to move around without getting shot is just something that has to be learned the hard way.

Hi all,

Im speaking from the perspective of a gamer from another online game which has made waves in recent times.I speak here of WorldofTanks.It is of course WWII centred while SB is more modern,but there are tips I think I can offer which will enhance SBs chances of lasting another 10years.

Im new to this game having spent a while searching for something more contemporary.When I found SB I was over the moon,but after blundering about for a while and getting killed by invisible foes,I worried about the games playability.Of course,modern warfare allows for such incidents but other things more pertinent are lacking.For instance,shell impact is a laugh in SB.Recoil is minimal and impact of shells on players tank is almost unnoticeable.This should be worked on.In WoT,a direct hit could slew your tank so violently that for a while you suffered some disorientation.

The map looks very 21st century military,I agree,yet it leaves one feeling quite lost sometimes.Any functional map should readily allow a player identify him/herself and improve on ones sense of bearing.

Key controls and views are too complex and too many.A simplified approach may attract,more than discourage,more user/players as it nearly did me.Interestingly,toggle on/off buttons are a rarity on SB.Players need the comfort of knowing that the same button that activates a view or function is the same that reverses it.

In the same vein,manual overrides should be readily available.I did not sense that they were,though I may be wrong.

I also suggest that the over-repititive voice call-outs should be either removed or curtailed.Or better,an option should be provided to minimize its frequency or even shut it down completely.To my mind,in the interest of realism,even the lack of that annoying voice can be more satisfying than that irritating chant of "unit receiving fire"or whatever.

Finally,please,do something about damage graphics.My destroyed M1A1 looked no different from a perfectly functioning machine.I thought that was weird and in need of a reworking.SB certainly has its strong points,but if it is to attract a wider followership it needs to improve on some of its weak points as Ive attempted to highlight here.But,good work,team.

[Ssnake]

Pirabee, thanks for your feedback. I appreciate that you took the time to analyze what you liked and what you do not.

There may however be disagreements about what SB Pro is and/or what it should be. For a variety of reasons, eSim Games is a company for simulation based, high fidelity (and low cost) training solutions. The prime justification for SB Pro, it's purpose, and our main source of revenue is tactical and AFV crew procedure part task training.

Most other design decisions are a direct derivative of this fundamental positioning of SB Pro as a product. We try to make it entertaining and fun wherever it enhances the receptiveness of the student to the learning process or, at least, where it doesn't stand in the way of training. In other words, the avoidance of negative training is a pretty high priority. You just don't want soldiers to learn something about their combat vehicle in SB Pro first, and then to "un-learn" this and replace it with a lesson about "how it works in reality".

That doesn't mean that SB Pro can't have simplifications and omissions. It certainly has them, in many places, partly because they are desirable in order to help the student to focus on a specific lesson, partly because they simply cannot avoided in some areas. For example, in the 3D interior you need the mouse to look around and point and click certain buttons. You can only click stuff in sequential order where, in the real vehicle, the user has two arms and two feet and ten fingers which can be used independently and simultaneously to some extent. The physical/workout part of loading a gun cannot be adequately modelled.

It also doesn't mean that SB Pro can't be made any better. Far from it. But give us a chance - we have just expanded our team size, and the results of this additional work force should become very apparent in the coming upgrade.

What I'm trying to say with this is that certain things cannot be done without sacrificing the utility value of SB Pro as a training tool. Some things are deliberately complicated because in this field, attention to detail can help a lot to improve the overall training results. We will do what we can to keep it attractive as a game for those who aren't using it for actual training. But we can do that only where we can meet both the fun and the seriousness in good compromise. Where that isn't possible, seriousness will take precedence as long as a "Professional" is part of the product name.

[GaryOwen]

The map looks very 21st century military,I agree,yet it leaves one feeling quite lost sometimes.Any functional map should readily allow a player identify him/herself and improve on ones sense of bearing.

Here is a link to a brief explanation of the depiction of terrain features on military topographical maps. At the end of the article is a link to a land navigation training scenario. You may find this helpful.

http://1stusvcav.com/Techniques/Move/map_reading.html

[JoKu]

Well, as long as it is around, I will be supporting it. Last update was AWESOME (IMO, of course): M1, M60, T-55, T-62... I just love that '50s-'80s technology - aircraft, cars, tanks, trains, just everything... Modern 'supertanks' are of course cool in their own sci-fi way...

[mpow66m]

Hi all,

Im speaking from the perspective of a gamer from another online game which has made waves in recent times.I speak here of WorldofTanks.It is of course WWII centred while SB is more modern,but there are tips I think I can offer which will enhance SBs chances of lasting another 10years.

Im new to this game having spent a while searching for something more contemporary.When I found SB I was over the moon,but after blundering about for a while and getting killed by invisible foes,I worried about the games playability.Of course,modern warfare allows for such incidents but other things more pertinent are lacking.For instance,shell impact is a laugh in SB.Recoil is minimal and impact of shells on players tank is almost unnoticeable.This should be worked on.In WoT,a direct hit could slew your tank so violently that for a while you suffered some disorientation.

The map looks very 21st century military,I agree,yet it leaves one feeling quite lost sometimes.Any functional map should readily allow a player identify him/herself and improve on ones sense of bearing.

Key controls and views are too complex and too many.A simplified approach may attract,more than discourage,more user/players as it nearly did me.Interestingly,toggle on/off buttons are a rarity on SB.Players need the comfort of knowing that the same button that activates a view or function is the same that reverses it.

In the same vein,manual overrides should be readily available.I did not sense that they were,though I may be wrong.

I also suggest that the over-repititive voice call-outs should be either removed or curtailed.Or better,an option should be provided to minimize its frequency or even shut it down completely.To my mind,in the interest of realism,even the lack of that annoying voice can be more satisfying than that irritating chant of "unit receiving fire"or whatever.

Finally,please,do something about damage graphics.My destroyed M1A1 looked no different from a perfectly functioning machine.I thought that was weird and in need of a reworking.SB certainly has its strong points,but if it is to attract a wider followership it needs to improve on some of its weak points as Ive attempted to highlight here.But,good work,team.

Think of SB as CHESS not checkers.Give it time as you learn it will frustrate you to no end................but in a good way!:biggrin:

[Tacbat]

It's an ongoing learning process. That's why you'll see forum members that have been here 10+ years.

[daskal]

Sb is complex but not complicated - thats what i really like about it.

Btw... some leaked in-game footage about SB in ten years later

[dejawolf]

after blundering about for a while and getting killed by invisible foes,I worried about the games playability.

part of what makes SB interesting, is figuring out who is shooting, and from where.

Key controls and views are too complex and too many.A simplified approach may attract,more than discourage,more user/players as it nearly did me.Interestingly,toggle on/off buttons are a rarity on SB.Players need the comfort of knowing that the same button that activates a view or function is the same that reverses it.

not all controls lends themselves well to toggle on/off. like when you have 3 different positions, all which can be crewed by different people (driver, commander, gunner, 4 different ammunition types, several different formations, etc.

Finally,please,do something about damage graphics.My destroyed M1A1 looked no different from a perfectly functioning machine.I thought that was weird and in need of a reworking.SB certainly has its strong points,but if it is to attract a wider followership it needs to improve on some of its weak points as Ive attempted to highlight here.But,good work,team.

the abrams won't catch fire easily. it has compartmentalized ammunition in a protected bustle, automatic fire suppression systems in both the engine and crew compartment, and the fuel tanks are sealed from the crew compartment with heavy walls.

also, it runs on JP-8, which is not as flammable as gasoline.

then there's the fact that most penetrations won't do much damage because of the spaced armour and spall liners on the inside. only in the narrow cone where the round penetrates.

this picture shows a penetration of an RPG-7.

if it hit the right spot, this could kill or wound part of the crew, effectively incapacitating the tank, and this small hole with a ring around it would be all that told you the tank MIGHT be dead. however, in a similar RPG hit, the round passed through the vehicle, and hit the hull electronics box, with nobody killed. in another it hit the side turret and took out the GPS. 20-30cm further back, and the gunner, and possibly loader would be dead.

the only way you'd know the difference is if the turret starts slewing towards you to engage.

[Assassin 7]

Here is something interesting about that topic: Experts believe whatever it is that knocked out the tank in August was not an RPG-7

but most likely something new — and that worries tank drivers. reference

http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?69149-Abrams-Tank-Penetrated-by-quot-Mystery-Weapon-quot-(2003)

Edited June 19, 2011 by dta delta

[Furia]

Finally,please,do something about damage graphics.My destroyed M1A1 looked no different from a perfectly functioning machine.I thought that was weird and in need of a reworking.SB certainly has its strong points,but if it is to attract a wider followership it needs to improve on some of its weak points as Ive attempted to highlight here.But,good work,team.

In Sb you have 4 different ways to know if a vehicle is destroyed or not.

1. The main gun drops to the lowest elevation point and stays there..

2. Some vehicles smoke or have fire from the turret and even in some cases the turret is blown away in a very spectacular way.

3. As mentioned above, if it is not killed, be sure to expect to see the main gun moving towards you to "retourn the favour"

4. Although not extremely realistic, you can take a look at the map where you will see the destroyed icon vehicle.

There are some avalaible mods on the downloads page that enhance the flames and smoke of damaged vehicles if you like that.

[dejawolf]

Here is something interesting about that topic: Experts believe whatever it is that knocked out the tank in August was not an RPG-7

but most likely something new — and that worries tank drivers. reference

http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?69149-Abrams-Tank-Penetrated-by-quot-Mystery-Weapon-quot-(2003)

yes, it might have been a PG-7VR warhead.

[mpow66m]

In Sb you have 4 different ways to know if a vehicle is destroyed or not.

1. The main gun drops to the lowest elevation point and stays there..

2. Some vehicles smoke or have fire from the turret and even in some cases the turret is blown away in a very spectacular way.

3. As mentioned above, if it is not killed, be sure to expect to see the main gun moving towards you to "retourn the favour"

4. Although not extremely realistic, you can take a look at the map where you will see the destroyed icon vehicle.

There are some avalaible mods on the downloads page that enhance the flames and smoke of damaged vehicles if you like that.

Is there any way to change number 4 in the new patch or upgrade?

[Gibsonm]

To what?

Personally I find that a better indicator as it works along the same way as a usual battle map where contacts are recorded and destroyed vehicles are marked up.

[dejawolf]

Is there any way to change number 4 in the new patch or upgrade?

you can turn off map updates in the mission editor.

[Froggy]

This could be a perfect tool if we could create (and share during multiplayers games)units and vehicules icons without map updates, as we create missions symbols. So you could keep track of destruction or contact, like we do in real like, pointing contacts or possible ennemy positions.