Jump to content
Azure Lion

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

Recommended Posts

Honestly, I'd be pretty happy with lights/lighting. IR spotlights, interior lights, white light, etc. Is this part of the new engine's functionality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we're talking "New engine" it means "new terrain engine" allowing for a sub-meter mesh width rather than the current 12.5m. This is the prerequisite to a number of other features, particularly road leveling on mountain slopes, or no more artificial plateaus around buildings on mountain slopes. There's more, but these you can consider more or less as a given in the next version.

This step has, well, a myriad of dependencies, and that's what we're currently working on. Fancy stuff like searchlights is rather low on our list of priorities at the moment. I'd love to implement them, don't get me wrong, but you could either treat it as pure eye candy (not my preference), or representing historical (but now obsolete) tactics (like the distribution of searchlight use within a platoon with time limits and position reshuffling in the dark plus maybe calling in artillery with illumination on suspected locations of enemy activity); better, but irrelevant for our army customers. Or the use of searchlights as a deterrent in peacekeeping operations, but then you also have a host of issues with (semi-)autonomous behavior of units if you light them up with your Xenon beam. That would be my ideal, but it's also the option that requires the biggest programming efforts with the least calculable results (might work great if everything works out as planned; might not work out so well if done half-assed).

Then, if you ask the practitioners what kind of night combat activities they train in the classroom, you get the reply "Oh, we don't." - at which point you wonder if the simple eye candy implementation wouldn't actually be the sensible thing to do. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Then, if you ask the practitioners what kind of night combat activities they train in the classroom, you get the reply "Oh, we don't." - at which point you wonder if the simple eye candy implementation wouldn't actually be the sensible thing to do. :o

Usually night fighting is best trained outside....and at night. :-)

There is reall not point doing it in a sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, I'd be pretty happy with lights/lighting. IR spotlights, interior lights, white light, etc. Is this part of the new engine's functionality?

Yeah IR would actually make night-fighting on the WP side far more realistic and fun, And for both sides especially for pre 1980's scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...as would illumination rounds for the artillery or the Charly-G.

But also not easy to implement :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah IR would actually make night-fighting on the WP side far more realistic and fun, ...

Well it would be "fun" too for any TI equipped opposition since active IR (being a heat source) shows up very nicely in TI. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it would be "fun" too for any TI equipped opposition since active IR (being a heat source) shows up very nicely in TI. :)

You'd have to do "early" day scenarios.

When NATO too had onyl NVG or maybe an "WOG"(heat-detection-system)...then it's more even.

But again...illum rounds would be a must too.

To cite Nils: a big can of worms

Edited by Grenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it would be "fun" too for any TI equipped opposition since active IR (being a heat source) shows up very nicely in TI. :)

I think the issue is as follows:

1. The warpac tanks show up quite well anyway on TI day or night.

2. Warpac tanks currently have a near zero hope of seeing anything with Gen0 image converters (Which are in my experience over-molded in SB based on what I've seen of them in real life)

3. Giving warpac tanks the appropriate IR lights that would make the Gen0 sights "useful" would be an improvement for them, of course at the expense of being more detectable by TI (and way more detectable by western I2).

Its the whole question of the enemy can see me anyway so If I can see something I kind-of have a chance.

Also, Illum rounds would be great for night fighting. But as mentioned apparently hard to implement.

Also, not sure how other better I2 devices (gen1/2) are modeled for either the east or west, I'm just basing this on what I assume is the gen-0 on the T72m1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does an "eye-candy" solution degrade the sim? Having lighting which units don't respond tactically to seems no more broken than denying those units the use of their lights to begin with. In my opinion, go for it.

Edited by FlatTax
oops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I've thought about it. Are the LRF's visible at night? They should light up NVG's like mofos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that I've thought about it. Are the LRF's visible at night? They should light up NVG's like mofos.

Nope, different wave-lenght, very short burst time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, different wave-lenght, very short burst time

Note quite. Our drivers always said that on the shooting range they could see our laser flash in their NVGs. But of course it was just a flash, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Note quite. Our drivers always said that on the shooting range they could see our laser flash in their NVGs. But of course it was just a flash, nothing more.

Odd, as the EMES emits somewhere in 1000+ nm wavelength.

NVG have their highest sensitivity in a shorter wavelenght.

But well possible as it aplifies/transforms NIR emmissions.

Hmm, never have been at alive fire range wearing an NVG AND someone firing a laser.

Observed quiete a number of AGDUS exercises where the tankies knocked each other silly...didn't see anything through BiV or NSA-80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, different wave-lenght, very short burst time

Actually the spectral response of the Gen0 Photocathode is well within the range of NdYag lasers. S25 photocathodes would probably have issues with it.

As for the "time" I have seen LRF's used at night and while its a relatively rapid series of pulses it was also quite obvious and mostly easy to localize to an area.

That being said, most modern NVG's come with clip-on LIF's that filter out NdYag laser freqs specifically to get blinded by these lasers. Again, something gen0 warpac gear would not have issues with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few more things I would like to see on the infantry side.

Rhib for landing troops.

Parachute drops would be nice.

Sniper teams.

Claymores/grenades(already discussed I think), Demolition charges.

A few more skins available under "camoflage scheme" at scenario start.

A generic Special forces skin or two.

A Generic diver skin.

A civilian suit scheme armed with pistol.

Have the already implemented Taliban skins available under "camo scheme".

Would be nice if Special forces troops received some skill bonuses.

And my usual request - ability to choose individual skins when placing units :)

And a question - When a unit is suppressed and will not move is there any way to get it moving other than to eliminate any opposing force ? I had some helicopters that had dropped off some troops and I wanted them to clear the area but they would not move and just sat there getting shot at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean...?

Order them to move (W, WW, WWW!), and they will. They will probably get killed while rushing into oncoming fire, sure - but they should move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure what you mean...?

Order them to move (W, WW, WWW!), and they will. They will probably get killed while rushing into oncoming fire, sure - but they should move.

I was meaning without taking actual control of them in first person - sorry. I used a waypoint but they wouldn't follow it. I was trying to move them away from oncoming fire.

PS. Sim could use an Mi-8 as well :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was meaning without taking actual control of them in first person - sorry. I used a waypoint but they wouldn't follow it. I was trying to move them away from oncoming fire.

And what sort of march tactic to get to the waypoint?

Most AI / RL helo pilots aren't keen to fly into fire.

I mean if your LZ is in the middle of some flat featureless plain and they are taking fire, then I suspect they are unlikely to go anywhere as the alternative route is no better than where they are, but if the exfill route is covered from fire and view etc. (the usual planning principles) then they should be happy.

Unless of course your exfill route takes them right over the source of the fire and you don't have an alternate plotted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what sort of march tactic to get to the waypoint?

Most AI / RL helo pilots aren't keen to fly into fire.

I mean if your LZ is in the middle of some flat featureless plain and they are taking fire, then I suspect they are unlikely to go anywhere as the alternative route is no better than where they are, but if the exfill route is covered from fire and view etc. (the usual planning principles) then they should be happy.

Unless of course your exfill route takes them right over the source of the fire and you don't have an alternate plotted?

I used an engage waypoint with a dismount order at the end of it.

The troops dismounted ok from 3 helicopters.

Then I used a march waypoint directly away from the fire but they had come under fire and would not move. Tried march/scout/ assault but now that I think of it I'm not sure if I tried the obvious one - retreat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, what do helo crews do if the LZ is deemed too hot/compromised but they have a load of troops to drop? Are alternative LZ's normally assigned pre-flight, or do they just try and make do and land at the least-deadly place in a deadly place? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Out of curiosity, what do helo crews do if the LZ is deemed too hot/compromised but they have a load of troops to drop? Are alternative LZ's normally assigned pre-flight, or do they just try and make do and land at the least-deadly place in a deadly place? :P

Its entirely up the mission designer and what behaviours they have scripted.

If they didn't script an alternate LZ (embark if ...) then the helos will keep going to where they were scripted to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used an engage waypoint with a dismount order at the end of it.

The troops dismounted ok from 3 helicopters.

Then I used a march waypoint directly away from the fire but they had come under fire and would not move. Tried march/scout/ assault but now that I think of it I'm not sure if I tried the obvious one - retreat.

User's manual, Chapter 8: Implicit Embark Conditions. Default Behaviors.

You just HAVE TO understand what's in this chapter in order to make the units do what you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
User's manual, Chapter 8: Implicit Embark Conditions. Default Behaviors.

You just HAVE TO understand what's in this chapter in order to make the units do what you want.

Repeating what Ssnake said:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=21883

And getting to the point:

To Read The (Expletive) Manual go here:

"C:\Program Files\eSim Games\SB Pro PE\docs"

You want "SBProManual"

Specifically Chapter 8.

Its all in there. :)

We have shown you the door.

Now its up to you to walk through it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another simple, not-so-much-time-consuming request: T-72 based ARV.

Just a 3D model in WP-green would suffice to me, it's not like ARVs are bulletproof to such an extent it would need über-armor-mapping and I feel that using Wisents for RedFor is even less realistic than using VT-72s with Wisent damage/pefrormance models.

eplcl.jpg

Or am I the only one who loves ARVs so much that I feel the need for dedicated Warzsaw-Pact one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...