Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Gibsonm]

This is a great explanation thank you, makes sense really. lol. Would this be the same for the loaders 240?

No, because the loader is doing his primary job when the gunner is firing - namely loading.

Plus as his MG is not under armour there are the related issues or blast, concussion, frag, debris, etc. associated with being outside and that close to the muzzle when it goes off.

to enable the AI loader to make use of the aforementioned M240...

No thanks - for me anyway.

His job is to load.

[Burnes15th]

No, because the loader is doing his primary job when the gunner is firing - namely loading.

I was referring to the traversing rather than firing. you know, if/when the loader is turned out and using the m240. There must be occasion for such a use or the weapon would not be mounted.

No thanks - for me anyway.

His job is to load.

ah but does this mean you are against the idea of crew models all together or simply in the pursuit of manifesting that scenario?

[Gibsonm]

I was referring to the traversing rather than firing. you know, if/when the loader is turned out and using the m240. There must be occasion for such a use or the weapon would not be mounted.

And why is the Gunner traversing - probably to engage a target I suspect and if he is then the Loader is needed inside.

The Loader's MG (at least here in Australia) is mounted doctrinally for the Loader to use as close anti air protection while on a admin move / march.

So if he isn't needed inside, he can provide at least psychological comfort to the rest of the crew. The gun would be at 12 O'clock and the Gunner wouldn't need him.

Once we cross the line of departure the Loader is inside doing what he is paid to do. On rare exceptions (i.e. less than 5% of the time) he might be needed for close protection or engaging targets of opportunity but the combination of:

1. The main armament firing Canister

2. The Coax MG

3. The Commander's MG

4. The multi barrelled smoke grenade dischargers (which have a HE or WP capability)

5. The ability to move away from the threat

Provide numerous other anti personnel options to the crew without someone leaning half out and firing what is probably the tank's worst weapon system (not stabilised, no sight, limited ammunition, …) partly exposed.

If he is hit, the rate of fire of the primary weapon system is slashed for no "good" reason.

ah but does this mean you are against the idea of crew models all together or simply in the pursuit of manifesting that scenario?

Well I didn't refer to the figures issue, but since you have asked, no, no requirement from my POV.

Next you'll want them to bleed when wounded and other cosmetic stuff that drain programming resources.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Gibsonm

[Burnes15th]

Again a very informative answer thank you. I know that Steel Beasts isn't technically a 'game' in the conventional (commercial) sense and that its sale to the general public is more of a fan service than a business move and that the ability to run the sim on rather meager hardware is obviously attractive to military customers.

[hoggydog]

One vehicle that does need crew modelled in my opinion is the humble technical. If operated by a competent player, these vehicles when hull down are almost impossible to engage directly as the machine gun is extremely difficult to spot agains almost all backgrounds. A modelled gunner would change the outline of the vehicle and make it less unrealistically stealthy.

[Tjay]

One vehicle that does need crew modelled in my opinion is the humble technical. If operated by a competent player, these vehicles when hull down are almost impossible to engage directly as the machine gun is extremely difficult to spot agains almost all backgrounds. A modelled gunner would change the outline of the vehicle and make it less unrealistically stealthy.

+1. Says he who lost a whole platoon of ASLAV PCs to a couple of Toyota High Ace pickup trucks in hull down positions during last night's UKA session. :icon_frown: The Technical gunner currently enjoys not only an elevated position for firing, but also a cloak of invisibility.

[Stratos]

For the red side players, there are two vehicles that need to have the visible gunners the Humvee and its variants:

And the M113:

Wondering If this and the technical (Toyota) gunners can be added. Even the now 16 years old game M1TP2 had them!!

[Ssnake]

We're not against visible 3D crews on grounds of principle. But this inevitably leads to feature creep, as Mark illustrated. There's a commander looking out, so you want him to also use the binculars. You want him to look where the computer-controlled commander (or his human player) is looking with the same level of exposure. You want natural movement, you want an animation if he's hit, and once that there's someone wounded the question comes up if there shouldn't be an animation for his emergency treatment. Once that this is done the question will be brought up if there shouldn't be an animation where he's being dragged out of his hatch, and what the doctrinally correct next steps should be (put him in the turret basket, put him on the turret roof, put him on the turret floor at the loader's place, or carry him on the ground, and when to do what in which combination, depending on a number of environmental/tactical factors).

Shouldn't we then also animate the casualty evacuation (by helicopter, armored personnel carrier, truck, or even civilian taxi), would that involve artwork and animations with IV and stretcher-bearers, ...

Of course you could cut it short and render the commander invisible if he's been hit, but then someone else, some other day, will ask similar questions.

In short, you have to make a cut somewhere, and it will always be a somewhat arbitrary decision where to place it.

Have we considered it? Yes.

Will it ever get done? Probably.

Soon? Unlikely.

[Stratos]

Didn't even tought in animations. After all combat vehicles fight at a certain distant, it never bothered me that those guys didn't had animations in M1TP2. Can we try with a static gunner on those vehicles mentioned before? (the Toyota truck, the M113 and the Hummer) and see If the crowd is pleased enough?

[MDF]

We're not against visible 3D crews on grounds of principle. But this inevitably leads to feature creep, as Mark illustrated. There's a commander looking out, so you want him to also use the binculars. You want him to look where the computer-controlled commander (or his human player) is looking with the same level of exposure. You want natural movement, you want an animation if he's hit, and once that there's someone wounded the question comes up if there shouldn't be an animation for his emergency treatment. Once that this is done the question will be brought up if there shouldn't be an animation where he's being dragged out of his hatch, and what the doctrinally correct next steps should be (put him in the turret basket, put him on the turret roof, put him on the turret floor at the loader's place, or carry him on the ground, and when to do what in which combination, depending on a number of environmental/tactical factors).

Shouldn't we then also animate the casualty evacuation (by helicopter, armored personnel carrier, truck, or even civilian taxi), would that involve artwork and animations with IV and stretcher-bearers, ...

Of course you could cut it short and render the commander invisible if he's been hit, but then someone else, some other day, will ask similar questions.

.

One significant use of visible TC's would be to enable visual signals. This would not be merely eye candy, so perhaps less susceptible to an aesthetical slippery slope. But I suppose other graphical solutions (e.g., just display a flag graphic over the TC position) would be a practical substitute.

[Burnes15th]

We're not against visible 3D crews on grounds of principle. But this inevitably leads to feature creep, as Mark illustrated. There's a commander looking out, so you want him to also use the binculars. You want him to look where the computer-controlled commander (or his human player) is looking with the same level of exposure. You want natural movement, you want an animation if he's hit, and once that there's someone wounded the question comes up if there shouldn't be an animation for his emergency treatment. Once that this is done the question will be brought up if there shouldn't be an animation where he's being dragged out of his hatch, and what the doctrinally correct next steps should be (put him in the turret basket, put him on the turret roof, put him on the turret floor at the loader's place, or carry him on the ground, and when to do what in which combination, depending on a number of environmental/tactical factors).

Shouldn't we then also animate the casualty evacuation (by helicopter, armored personnel carrier, truck, or even civilian taxi), would that involve artwork and animations with IV and stretcher-bearers, ...

Of course you could cut it short and render the commander invisible if he's been hit, but then someone else, some other day, will ask similar questions.

In short, you have to make a cut somewhere, and it will always be a somewhat arbitrary decision where to place it.

Have we considered it? Yes.

Will it ever get done? Probably.

Soon? Unlikely.

Thank you for a very concise and candid reply to that question and yes i can totally see your point on the never ending stretching of boundaries. perhaps utilizing a LOD system similar to other large scale military games could prove a good solution some day as only the crew currently being rendered in your vehicle really need a high degree of detail. but like i said originally for me it is a very minor thing and i am very much enjoying the game as it is now.

I renewed my licence a few days ago and managed finally to convince one of my fellow arma tank crewmen from the 15th MEU realism unit to get a copy and licence.

[Hedgehog]

We're not against visible 3D crews on grounds of principle. But this inevitably leads to feature creep, as Mark illustrated. There's a commander looking out, so you want him to also use the binculars. You want him to look where the computer-controlled commander (or his human player) is looking with the same level of exposure. You want natural movement, you want an animation if he's hit, and once that there's someone wounded the question comes up if there shouldn't be an animation for his emergency treatment. Once that this is done the question will be brought up if there shouldn't be an animation where he's being dragged out of his hatch, and what the doctrinally correct next steps should be (put him in the turret basket, put him on the turret roof, put him on the turret floor at the loader's place, or carry him on the ground, and when to do what in which combination, depending on a number of environmental/tactical factors).

Shouldn't we then also animate the casualty evacuation (by helicopter, armored personnel carrier, truck, or even civilian taxi), would that involve artwork and animations with IV and stretcher-bearers, ...

Of course you could cut it short and render the commander invisible if he's been hit, but then someone else, some other day, will ask similar questions.

In short, you have to make a cut somewhere, and it will always be a somewhat arbitrary decision where to place it.

Have we considered it? Yes.

Will it ever get done? Probably.

Soon? Unlikely.

Personally, I'd be happy with:

Commander Opened up

Commander Closed down

Commander Wounded opened up (Flopped over the hatch ring.)

Animations to transition between these states.

All external view only.

(And some indication of current view point, like the TC Peri's rotation)

[Stratos]

I agree with Sonic (sorry couldn't resist). Three states and it's animations (and I will be happy even without the animations).

[Tjay]

We're not against visible 3D crews on grounds of principle. But this inevitably leads to feature creep, as Mark illustrated. There's a commander looking out, so you want him to also use the binculars. You want him to look where the computer-controlled commander (or his human player) is looking with the same level of exposure. You want natural movement, you want an animation if he's hit, and once that there's someone wounded the question comes up if there shouldn't be an animation for his emergency treatment. Once that this is done the question will be brought up if there shouldn't be an animation where he's being dragged out of his hatch, and what the doctrinally correct next steps should be (put him in the turret basket, put him on the turret roof, put him on the turret floor at the loader's place, or carry him on the ground, and when to do what in which combination, depending on a number of environmental/tactical factors).

Shouldn't we then also animate the casualty evacuation (by helicopter, armored personnel carrier, truck, or even civilian taxi), would that involve artwork and animations with IV and stretcher-bearers, ...

Of course you could cut it short and render the commander invisible if he's been hit, but then someone else, some other day, will ask similar questions.

In short, you have to make a cut somewhere, and it will always be a somewhat arbitrary decision where to place it.

Have we considered it? Yes.

Will it ever get done? Probably.

Soon? Unlikely.

There will always be a demand for improvements as mentioned above. Presumably v3.0 came about as a response to such demands. But surely there's a difference between the original suggestion for commander figures on certain vehicles to make the SB models more realistic in terms of visibility, and 'eye candy' animations that don't affect the tactical situation at all?

I'm sure most people would understand if you said OK to 'fixed figures', (maybe with 'alive' and 'dead' versions) but no to animations and other non essential aspects.

[Tacbat]

...and see If the crowd is pleased enough?

They never are.

[Marko]

2S25 Sprut-SD Amphibious Light Tank.

It can also be Airdropped with the crew inside. (Not something I would like to do. LoL)

It would make for some interesting scenarios if the sprut were in SB.

[apelles]

I would like to ask a little feature. It would be possible changing the soundset matching the vehicle? For example russian for t-72 (spanish for Leo2E, german for Leo2A6, danish for Leo2A5DK) but the text, descriptions, orders and the menus remaining english?

I like the realistic sound, however i like understand too, whats going on. :-)

[Lt DeFault]

See here.

Doesn't work for each vehicle, but you can change the voices overall.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Lt DeFault
Clarity.

[apelles]

Great!

Thanks!

This was the fastest problem solving in the content wish list. :-D

[Gibsonm]

Not quite.

If you go back there have been quite a few "we must have this!" type posts that within minutes were resolved because they already existed but the requester didn't know.

[Hedgehog]

I agree with Sonic (sorry couldn't resist).

:heu:

:bigsmile:

[Stratos]

I'm sure most people would understand if you said OK to 'fixed figures', (maybe with 'alive' and 'dead' versions) but no to animations and other non essential aspects.

Fixed figures are ok with me, after all I'm too busy to see those guys moving. As I said, maybe we can have a beta on a vehicle and see how it goes.

[Koen]

Even only fixed figures are likely to increase greatly the commercial appeal of SB,

with a limited (okay, I don't really know) effort needed.

[Splash]

I think the AH-64A sets a reasonable standard for vehicle crews.

[Gibsonm]

I think the AH-64A sets a reasonable standard for vehicle crews.

Except of course that they are "static". Not much chance of them doing anything but sitting still.

The vehicle commander equivalent is a crew commander always standing up (or down) regardless of the view chosen by the player or whether the hatches are closed or not, etc.

So land vehicle crews already have one extra degree of complexity compared to helicopter crews, even before you start down the "slippery slope".