Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Hedgehog]

Sorted!

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/sbgallery/main.php?g2_itemId=18087

Next?

Hedgehog likes this.

[SelvaBR]

You can do this already, via the MP-screen.

Only thing is: the Blue side needs to function completely computercontrolled as well.

[...].

Nah, i don't think you got the point Koen. We can play redfor normally on multiplayer by just choosing the side, but we can't play redfor normally on singleplayer(practicing) matches without doing some... adjustments before. It would be pretty much cool if we could go redfor just setting us on a playable redfor vehicle and START the game.

Anyway, forgive me folks for being so annoying about something that its irrelevant to most of you guys, but i think that it's a simple thing to the devs to do and and i guess that some other members ( Soviet VU? ) would appreciate such detail either, so that's why its in my wish list for 3.0

[Ssnake]

I still don't understand what the problem is. You want to play Red in a single player mission, right? SO you simply start a network session without inviting anyone but yourself. In the assembly hall, switch to the Red side, pick a vehicle, hit Start. From that point on it behaves like any single player game.

[Gibsonm]

Except of course if its a mission designed to be played by human Blue against AI Red, then Blue will just sit there (has no scripting) if someone decides they want to play Red only.

Pretty sure there is no requirement for designers to script BOTH sides - just in case.

[Koen]

The rothenkircken cpx mission has Blue fully scripted IIRC (and Red as well)

So SelvaBR, follow the steps as indicated by Ssnake

& you will play with Red in SP in that mission.

Have fun

[hoggydog]

Maybe a 'remove all routes' button is sort of what is needed, of course Blue would still need scripting if you are playing Red

[Froggy]

Nah, i don't think you got the point Koen. We can play redfor normally on multiplayer by just choosing the side, but we can't play redfor normally on singleplayer(practicing) matches without doing some... adjustments before. It would be pretty much cool if we could go redfor just setting us on a playable redfor vehicle and START the game.

Anyway, forgive me folks for being so annoying about something that its irrelevant to most of you guys, but i think that it's a simple thing to the devs to do and and i guess that some other members ( Soviet VU? ) would appreciate such detail either, so that's why its in my wish list for 3.0

I don't see your problem.

Blue is not western vehicules only and Red is not soviet vehicules only.

If you want to play with T72, BRDM, make a mission with them in blue and M1,Leo... in red.

Single player missions are intended to be played from blue side, which is friendly side, against an opfor, the red side. It is not limited as ARMA series, with red ARE Soviet equipments.

Missions I design have opfor scripted, but not bluefor, to let the player to have is own plan.

I have done missions were good guys (blue) are soviet equiped, and bad guys (red) western equipments,

[Froggy]

To the_List:

make the maps graphics on 3 layers, that may be hiden independently:

The mission graphics

The received graphics

The local (user) graphics

Would be very usefull during massive multiplayer games (ala LNoT):

[TankHunter]

The ability to place individual mines to simulate pressure plate IEDs.

[Panzer_Leader]

I feel bad even asking after all the goodies we're receiving in v3.0, but I'd love to see an M41 DK1 in Steel Beasts:

You could then disable the TIS and LRF to represent an earlier M41 used by other armies, US, GE, NZ etc.

[Ssnake]

No Walker Bulldog this time.

[Panzer_Leader]

No Walker Bulldog this time.

That's fine, I wasn't expecting it in 3.0. I just wanted to put my wish out there. It seems you never know who is listening... :biggrin:

[Rangoon]

TrackIR support :eek2:

100% agree with this. 150% even.

It would make looking around as TC while also override-steering the turret very natural. All the flightsim and Arma users here by now are mostly used to using TrackIR fluidly as a separate control from mouse/HOTAS, and it's a very organic thing with very little practice.

When you combine the beautiful 3D units (inside and out) of Steel Beasts with the ease of surveying outside and just looking around inside with TrackIR (can anyone say 6DoF?), that's a very good thing. DCS etc prove that you can look around the cockpit at switches/buttons with TrackIR and have a left-click assigned to a HOTAS button for easy and immersive interaction with the vehicle's systems. It would need to be implemented from eSim, though, to be done properly.

The X series took a long time to implement TrackIR (I think it was the recent X3: Albion Prelude that finally brought it online), but I'm sure glad they finally did, even though they have room for improvement.

Anytime you're in the F1 view of Steel Beasts, regardless of crew position, I think this would be a successful implemenation. Do drivers really only have one external view port or are there any off to the sides as well? Certainly TC and gunner.

[Rangoon]

Along similar lines; default ability to present the Map separately on a second screen or device (such as tablet).

I think any support of tablets would be great. When you look at some of the utilities written for tablets that enhance the DCS series, you can see the potential.

You have a touch-screen with various instruments or control panels at your fingertips. Granted, perhaps the systems are generally simpler in tanks, but so far I've only played the M1A1 and Bradley. Maybe the Leos and M1A2 have more complex systems which would be well suited to management on a tablet?

[12Alfa]

100% agree with this. 150% even.

It would make looking around as TC while also override-steering the turret very natural. All the flightsim and Arma users here by now are mostly used to using TrackIR fluidly as a separate control from mouse/HOTAS, and it's a very organic thing with very little practice.

When you combine the beautiful 3D units (inside and out) of Steel Beasts with the ease of surveying outside and just looking around inside with TrackIR (can anyone say 6DoF?), that's a very good thing. DCS etc prove that you can look around the cockpit at switches/buttons with TrackIR and have a left-click assigned to a HOTAS button for easy and immersive interaction with the vehicle's systems. It would need to be implemented from eSim, though, to be done properly.

The X series took a long time to implement TrackIR (I think it was the recent X3: Albion Prelude that finally brought it online), but I'm sure glad they finally did, even though they have room for improvement.

Anytime you're in the F1 view of Steel Beasts, regardless of crew position, I think this would be a successful implemenation. Do drivers really only have one external view port or are there any off to the sides as well? Certainly TC and gunner.

I have used track IR in Sb, and well in the unbutton view it has potential the other view's it's a no go. The issue is that you can't see the buttons to push if needed (looking at your keyboard). So it has limited use IMO.

If you spend all your time in the unbuttoned view or F8 then it may be ok.

[Rangoon]

I have used track IR in Sb, and well in the unbutton view it has potential the other view's it's a no go. The issue is that you can't see the buttons to push if needed (looking at your keyboard). So it has limited use IMO.

If you spend all your time in the unbuttoned view or F8 then it may be ok.

That's why I'm saying it would need to be implemented from eSim. Like in DCS, you need simply a small cross-hair or dot to show center screen, and then a mouse-click (LMB) assigned to your HOTAS somewhere. It works fine in DCS. Just look and press.

Or maybe I misunderstand you. You shouldn't need to look at the keyboard; that's the point of the trackIR w/HOTAS (or mouse/keyboard). I personally use ESDFX for movement rather than WASDX because then my hand is in home position and I can find any key I need, except the numpad/keypad stuff on the mouse side (then I need to look since my hand has to leave the controller/mouse). The point here is that you don't necessarily use the keyboard. It's like using the 3D view with mouselook and mouseclick to interact, rather than hotkeys, except you're using TrackIR and mouseclick on the controller (flightstick). But in the end, of course, you're normally still using hotkeys. I just think it would work well to be able to look around with ease, and to also click buttons easily as you're doing so without leaving the HOTAS.

And with 6DoF, you can look around the various controllers to see the hidden panels, etc.

And you're right about unbuttoned view; it would allow you to both look and move the turret at the same time.

[Grenny]

That's why I'm saying it would need to be implemented from eSim. Like in DCS, you need simply a small cross-hair or dot to show center screen, and then a mouse-click (LMB) assigned to your HOTAS somewhere. It works fine in DCS. Just look and press.

Or maybe I misunderstand you. You shouldn't need to look at the keyboard; that's the point of the trackIR w/HOTAS (or mouse/keyboard). I personally use ESDFX for movement rather than WASDX because then my hand is in home position and I can find any key I need, except the numpad/keypad stuff on the mouse side (then I need to look since my hand has to leave the controller/mouse). The point here is that you don't necessarily use the keyboard. It's like using the 3D view with mouselook and mouseclick to interact, rather than hotkeys, except you're using TrackIR and mouseclick on the controller (flightstick). But in the end, of course, you're normally still using hotkeys. I just think it would work well to be able to look around with ease, and to also click buttons easily as you're doing so without leaving the HOTAS.

And with 6DoF, you can look around the various controllers to see the hidden panels, etc.

And you're right about unbuttoned view; it would allow you to both look and move the turret at the same time.

And that is the point: In real life you never take your head away from the optics. So you do NOT LOOK at the buttons and switches...you know where they are and touch them "from memory". So doing that with track-IR would be counter-intuitive. Track IR may be a great thing for the un-buttoned view, but it is MORE then useless for the 3d interior.

[Rangoon]

And that is the point: In real life you never take your head away from the optics. So you do NOT LOOK at the buttons and switches...you know where they are and touch them "from memory". So doing that with track-IR would be counter-intuitive. Track IR may be a great thing for the un-buttoned view, but it is MORE then useless for the 3d interior.

Well then, there you have it. A great thing for the unbottoned view.

I'm still a noob, so sometimes look around the TC station just for fun...

[BigBadVuk]

Second monitor support - with options to assign either GPS extension, or CITV, etc.. Or at least map, it is sometimes impossible to spare few secs, just even for quick check of tactical situation.

Somewhere here was mentioned that you could use 2nd SB as client and your original one as host in order to make it run map on second monitor - but I'm yet to figure out how to do that, they don't see each other on LAN.

[hoggydog]

I have set up the two SB thing on my PC, if i remember correctly I had to use my global IP address for to connect to the host not my local one

[thewood]

Since I am relatively new, I might have missed it through ignorance.

But does Red have any more advanced ATGW missiles for infantry than the AT-3 and AT-4? I am thinking AT-7, AT-13, or AT-14.

It seems the Red forces are significantly unbalanced in this area.

I am not looking for super-detailed 3D renderings and crewable launchers, but it seems these are missing as tactical options for scenario builders.

Also, it seems the T-55 and T-62 are bare bones. Are there more modern variants on the horizon with laser range finders, AT-10/AT-11 missile rounds, or ERA? Again, not crewable, but tactical units that give scenario builders a little larger window to recreate some battles with other countries.

[Gibsonm]

But does Red have any more advanced ATGW missiles for infantry than the AT-3 and AT-4? I am thinking AT-7, AT-13, or AT-14.

It seems the Red forces are significantly unbalanced in this area.

From memory I think Red can access AT-3, 4 and 5 for dismounted and AT-3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 11 for various vehicles (BMP-1/2, BRDM 2, T-74 and T-80 variants).

[thewood]

I couldn't find AT-5 in the editor. I'll double check.

I was talking specifically about infantry weapons and T-55/T-62 which use the AT-10/AT-11

edit...

I just double checked...if I select a BMP2, and dismount/divide the dismounts, I can change the missile to an AT-5 variant. That helps. Still wondering about more modern ATGW for red.

Since this is a sim developed for the military, I would have thought they wanted some advanced Red weaponry as a test at minimum.

edit to the edit...

It turns out the AT-5 was still asscoaited with the BMP-2 I had selected. So infantry appear to not have access to AT-5.

[Hedgehog]

Rangoon, I'm not sure how new you are here but, rather than asking 20+ questions, try reading the manual, typically located here:

C:/Program files/esimgames/steelbeasts/doc/manual.pdf

Or searching (Search button located on the lower black bar above between "New Posts" & "Quick Links") this forum for mission related questions:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/forumdisplay.php?f=9

Or try the Wiki:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/sbvwiki/

These are the three areas where you will probably find the answers you seek there. (Self help is the best help)

[Rangoon]

Rangoon, I'm not sure how new you are here but, rather than asking 20+ questions, try reading the manual, typically located here:

C:/Program files/esimgames/steelbeasts/doc/manual.pdf

Or searching (Search button located on the lower black bar above between "New Posts" & "Quick Links") this forum for mission related questions:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/forumdisplay.php?f=9

Or try the Wiki:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/sbvwiki/

These are the three areas where you will probably find the answers you seek there. (Self help is the best help)

Been doing all of those things. When I can't find an answer, or if the info is not consistent with what I'm seeing in the sim, I ask the question. Maybe I don't know how to use the search in the wiki or the forum, but I just type in some key words, wade through the threads, using CTL f to find said key words, and then post. If you only knew how many times I didn't post.... Perhaps I've been relying too much on General Discussion searches and not the specific scenario/map forum you're linking to. I didn't think anything I was asking had to do with specific scenarios or maps, so didn't look there.

The wiki search hasn't normally yielded anything for me. I invariably wind up in the index looking for topics. Entering "artillery" into the wiki just says this page has been locked to prevent editing, and sends me back to the main page.

Not sure what else I can do to search wiki/forum. Sorry for wasting people's time.