Jump to content
Azure Lion

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Grenny said:

esimtrains ...somehow does not have the same ring to it...

CATT

Combined Arms Tactical Trainer.  eSim CATT

                                                   

Edited by CalAB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

☺️

Well, jokes and other helpful advice aside ...
My point was: eSim.  Just eSim. The name is certainly appropriate for a company making computer simulation software. The "Games" part of the name and logo just seems to be a hurdle, given the occasional need to explain the focus of the product to those who think it's a game. 
Like I said. It's something I've wondered for years. Maybe it's been asked and answered before, I don't recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're still leveraging games technology and gaming techniques to deliver better training, at the lowest prices possible. So it's not entirely nostalgic to keep the "Game" in the name. Plus, being a Games company gives us license to be eccentric, especially with job titles and email addresses, to break out of the boredom of "respectable conduct" in the corporate world. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also "serious gaming" is a concept within the military simulation sphere.

 

It probably helps eSim distribute the risk by having a footprint in both sectors, also if you are going to spend XXXX hours developing a product, it probably makes sense to spend just a little bit more time and have two products / income streams.

 

Along the lines of Bohemia with ARMA / VBS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

Also "serious gaming" is a concept within the military simulation sphere.

 

It probably helps eSim distribute the risk by having a footprint in both sectors, also if you are going to spend XXXX hours developing a product, it probably makes sense to spend just a little bit more time and have two products / income streams.

 

Along the lines of Bohemia with ARMA / VBS.

 

or like DCS/TBS ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/18/2019 at 11:07 PM, TSe419E said:

I wish for the driver's interior to be less bright so it is easier to see through the vision blocks, especially at dusk and night.

 

Yeah, like I thought: it's easy to adjust ...

 

driver.png

 

File attached.

drv.zip

Edited by Lt DeFault

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, TSe419E said:

Thank you!

 

No problem. That was just a quick and dirty test. If you want it darker/lighter/different in any way, let me know (maybe by PM). I'll try to make it exactly what you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ssnake said:

We're still leveraging games technology and gaming techniques to deliver better training, at the lowest prices possible. So it's not entirely nostalgic to keep the "Game" in the name. Plus, being a Games company gives us license to be eccentric, especially with job titles and email addresses, to break out of the boredom of "respectable conduct" in the corporate world. :P

 

So speaking of all this "gaming", and going back to the prior question I raised... 

 

I am sympathetic to your limited resources situation, and having to prioritize certain developments over others.  For example, rather than asking E-Sim to "Make me an FV432" for British scenarios, I instead asked for the M113 to get the M240 as an optional weapon.  This was done.  I've now made at least two scenarios (only one released as yet) where M113's with M240's are in the scenario and the player is told "Those are not M113s you're looking at.  Squint harder at the FV432!" because it's close enough.

 

I understand that getting enough information on something like the T-90 or the T-80 to make it playable means it's gonna take a long time to get it done, if ever.  So what about making a few "gaming" enhancements to vehicles that are already included so that we can leverage off of them?

 

For example, I would love to have a Leopard 1 with early Passive IR night sights.  What I've suggested in the past was essentially a copy/paste of the Leopard AS1 which is already done and in game, and which I frequently use as an "Ersatz Leo1A4" quite happily, slapping in a quick PZB-200 style night sight, and renaming it "Leopard 1A4" or something.  Code for the night sight should be pretty close to what we have for the T-72's night sights, perhaps with somewhat better picture quality.  In fact, this is essentially already implemented on the Warrior IFV.

 

Quick, dirty, and now we can throw the T-55/62/72 up against something that isn't going to slaughter it with thermal predator vision when we play around with the wonderful new night time environment.  Similarly, why not leverage off the existing T-72s to fill the gap for a "modern OPFOR" tank?  It doesn't have to be 100% correct to be put in as a "Stand in!  Deal with it, use it, don't use it, either way, here!" vehicle does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

For example, I would love to have a Leopard 1 with early Passive IR night sights.  What I've suggested in the past was essentially a copy/paste of the Leopard AS1 which is already done and in game, and which I frequently use as an "Ersatz Leo1A4" quite happily, slapping in a quick PZB-200 style night sight, and renaming it "Leopard 1A4" or something.  Code for the night sight should be pretty close to what we have for the T-72's night sights, perhaps with somewhat better picture quality.  In fact, this is essentially already implemented on the Warrior IFV.

Oh yes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

And a M60A1 RISE Passive.

Although that would be great to have, I think those had optical rangefinders.

 

I will point out that although they seem to be almost entirely unknown, there was at least one short run of "M60A3 Passive", which would be otherwise identical to the current M60A3 TTS featured in Pro PE, but with Passive IR night sights instead of thermals.  That one, again, is something that I see as a "Quick add".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with, or particularly slow or inaccurate, with the optical range finder of the M60A1.  It just takes a little more crew coordination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TSe419E said:

Nothing wrong with, or particularly slow or inaccurate, with the optical range finder of the M60A1.  It just takes a little more crew coordination.

I'm more concerned with eSims ability/willingness to put in the time to model it.  I don't know if the ProPE engine can actually model an optical rangefinder like that, or what it would take from the team.  Although I would LOVE to have a 60A1 RISE Passive, as well as a USMC model with Blazer ERA, if the situation was between actually getting an A3 Passive, or wishing forever for an A1....Well....

 

On the related subject of working with what we have...

@SsnakeCan we get an option in the scenario builder to "Remove" rather than to "Damage" subsystems?

 

A vehicle with a system "Removed" will behave exactly as if the system is "Damaged", but the player won't have the blinking damage warning up on the screen for the entire mission...

Edited by Maj.Hans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

...if the situation was between actually getting an A3 Passive, or wishing forever for an A1....Well....

Agree with you there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few wishes:

-Faster inf when nudging heavy weapons, right now is too slow to be useful

-PC/IFV resupplying their OWN inf at distance, like normal supply truck, with no need to mount/dismount inf.

-Tactics BP keeping the spacing from the previous route,not going to medium spacing always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/21/2019 at 6:45 AM, Maj.Hans said:

 

A vehicle with a system "Removed" will behave exactly as if the system is "Damaged", but the player won't have the blinking damage warning up on the screen for the entire mission...

👍😎

Edited by Hoover
Update

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Colebrook said:

Few wishes:

-Faster inf when nudging heavy weapons, right now is too slow to be useful

 

 

It does take a bit of effort / time to move say a M2HB on a tripod, esp. if its been firing.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Colebrook said:

-Tactics BP keeping the spacing from the previous route,not going to medium spacing always.

 

This x1000. Controlling platoons in narrow corridors is such a pain when BPs keep resetting to normal spacing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2019 at 4:01 AM, Rotareneg said:

 

This x1000. Controlling platoons in narrow corridors is such a pain when BPs keep resetting to normal spacing.

 

Yes I totally agree on this, should keep the same spacing as previous route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried 100%, 125%, 150% (windows  recommended), 175% and 200%. Same result as above.

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...