We love screenshots

[lavictoireestlavie]

Hi lavictoireestlavie

There is a Soviet VU headed by Marko.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=21106

Drop him a pm

Regards

Thanks for the info ! I meant a modern eastern block tank that is crewable like the T 90S or T-80U. Hunting Abrams or Leopards in T 62s and T72s from 3000 +m away is no fun

[Hedgehog]

Thanks for the info ! I meant a modern eastern block tank that is crewable like the T 90S or T-80U. Hunting Abrams or Leopards in T 62s and T72s from 3000 +m away is no fun

Like Gibsonm said, you're doing it wrong.

[Ssnake]

I meant a modern eastern block tank that is crewable like the T 90S or T-80U.

Oh, let me just ring up my friend in the Kremlin and ask for the next possible date of a photo session and full disclosure of these systems. I'm sure they will gladly share their military secrets with representatives from a NATO country that have the explicit intent to make the work results public. :bigsmile:

[Grenny]

Oh, let me just ring up my friend in the Kremlin and ask for the next possible date of a photo session and full disclosure of these systems. I'm sure they will gladly share their military secrets with representatives from a NATO country that have the explicit intent to make the work results public. :bigsmile:

Hey, asking never hurts.

Ok, I may...If you wake up in some FSB basement in deep sibiria after asking. Just try anyway :-P

[Marko]

Oh, let me just ring up my friend in the Kremlin and ask for the next possible date of a photo session and full disclosure of these systems. I'm sure they will gladly share their military secrets with representatives from a NATO country that have the explicit intent to make the work results public. :bigsmile:

I could be wrong but haven't Esim have built turret models in the past with out having full Access to the actual vehicles such as the CR-2 using published available data.

[Gibsonm]

I could be wrong but haven't Esim have built turret models in the past with out having full Access to the actual vehicles such as the CR-2 using published available data.

Sure, but look at the number of complaints (founded and unfounded) as a result.

Or the requests for a better, fully representation ("what you've done is OK, but we need X added").

They are on a "hiding to nothing" with this.

For every post about "thanks for making the effort, I understand its an approximation" there are what 10, 50, 100? posts about:

The Driver's hatch is horrendous

The L27 120mm APFSDS (CHARM-3) ammo is useless/undermodelled

Targeting with HESH is useless

Its so damn slow

etc.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Gibsonm

[Ssnake]

I could be wrong but haven't Esim have built turret models in the past with out having full Access to the actual vehicles such as the CR-2 using published available data.

Well, you need to know at least something, and descriptions of the behavior of fire control systems are usually not that easily available. The T-62 is an example of what we can do if the fire control system is hardly existent and the sights and the ballistic properties of the ammunition is known to a sufficient degree of fidelity.

The Challenger 2, we had a lot more reference for it (but still no access to the turret interior for a decent photo session. Friends of us tried it, had to send all photos through censorship, and they ruined the photos in the process to the point that you wonder why they gave permission for the photo session to begin with. It was just a giant waste of time for everybody.

We're engineers not magicians. We can't just wave a wand to sprinkle our source code with Pixie dust, and then somehow a model of a T-80 fire control system appears. At the very least we need a comparative description from someone who is actually familiar with the system so he can describe us the procedures and the reaction of the system to a number of standard cases. That would allow us to piece together some elements, but without it we'd drift away in uncharted waters of baseless speculation.

[Tjay]

The Challenger 2, we had a lot more reference for it (but still no access to the turret interior for a decent photo session. Friends of us tried it, had to send all photos through censorship, and they ruined the photos in the process to the point that you wonder why they gave permission for the photo session to begin with. It was just a giant waste of time for everybody.

Because the UK MOD is institutionaly incompetent. :icon_frown:

[Tjay]

For every post about "thanks for making the effort, I understand its an approximation" there are what 10, 50, 100? posts about:

The Driver's hatch is horrendous

The L27 120mm APFSDS (CHARM-3) ammo is useless/undermodelled

Targeting with HESH is useless

Its so damn slow

etc.

IMHO, eSim should state unequivocally that the model is 'an approximation' and then tell the rivet counters and know-alls to submit authenticated alternative information if they have it. I.e 'Put up or shut up'. That would not only spike the moaners but might result in additional genuine information coming to light.

[MDF]

Well, you need to know at least something, and descriptions of the behavior of fire control systems are usually not that easily available. The T-62 is an example of what we can do if the fire control system is hardly existent and the sights and the ballistic properties of the ammunition is known to a sufficient degree of fidelity.

The Challenger 2, we had a lot more reference for it (but still no access to the turret interior for a decent photo session. Friends of us tried it, had to send all photos through censorship, and they ruined the photos in the process to the point that you wonder why they gave permission for the photo session to begin with. It was just a giant waste of time for everybody.

We're engineers not magicians. We can't just wave a wand to sprinkle our source code with Pixie dust, and then somehow a model of a T-80 fire control system appears. At the very least we need a comparative description from someone who is actually familiar with the system so he can describe us the procedures and the reaction of the system to a number of standard cases. That would allow us to piece together some elements, but without it we'd drift away in uncharted waters of baseless speculation.

For starters, have you seen these panoramic photos of a T-80 interior?

There's also former DDR tanker Stefan Kotsch's site. He posts occasionally on tank-net. There's also "Harkonnen" over there, who has a wealth of knowledge.

I would imagine that the Russian Steel Beasts VU (can't recall name at the moment) might have some people who know people with information about some of the earlier T-80 versions that might not be sensitive any longer.

[Grenny]

For starters, have you seen these panoramic photos of a T-80 interior?

There's also former DDR tanker Stefan Kotsch's site. He posts occasionally on tank-net. There's also "Harkonnen" over there, who has a wealth of knowledge.

I would imagine that the Russian Steel Beasts VU (can't recall name at the moment) might have some people who know people with information about some of the earlier T-80 versions that might not be sensitive any longer.

Knowing ssnake, i'd say he knows those...

[dejawolf]

For starters, have you seen these panoramic photos of a T-80 interior?

There's also former DDR tanker Stefan Kotsch's site. He posts occasionally on tank-net. There's also "Harkonnen" over there, who has a wealth of knowledge.

I would imagine that the Russian Steel Beasts VU (can't recall name at the moment) might have some people who know people with information about some of the earlier T-80 versions that might not be sensitive any longer.

yes, we've seen both, and we frequent the kotsch website, and have asked stefan questions occasionally.

we even have a T-80BV manual. all in russian though. whether a vehicle becomes playable or not, is a matter of prioritization, and available resources however. currently the Steel beasts codebase is quite old, and implementing new vehicles requires a lot of effort and care from the programmers. if they rush too much, it risks steel beasts becoming unstable and more prone to crashing. even simple vehicles such as the BTR-80, and T-62 can take up to 2 weeks of programming time alone. not to mention the minimum of 1 month of work on an exterior model, and 2-3 months for an interior model. additionally there's a lot of other things constantly occupying the programmers, such as special customization contracts for different military customers. and as much as we'd love to do more for the civilian customers, the military customers is what ensures that Esim does not disappear.

[Grenny]

Also, i hope i do at least recite the meaning correctly, Ssnake said something about lots of work going into stuff that the (civ) user will not notice as new "shinies", but that this will help to get SB more stable and better adaptable...

[Tjay]

Currently the Steel beasts codebase is quite old...

And in that fact lies a host of problems - or so I'm told by those claiming knowledge of software programming. Is this likely to change any time in the medium to distant future? I'm assuming it's not going to change in the short term. :icon_frown:

[Lt DeFault]

IMHO, eSim should state unequivocally that the model is 'an approximation' and then tell the rivet counters and know-alls to submit authenticated alternative information if they have it. I.e 'Put up or shut up'. That would not only spike the moaners but might result in additional genuine information coming to light.

That's actually the gist of what they usually say when someone gets too nit-picky.

[Marko]

yes, we've seen both, and we frequent the kotsch website, and have asked stefan questions occasionally.

we even have a T-80BV manual. all in russian though. whether a vehicle becomes playable or not, is a matter of prioritization, and available resources however. currently the Steel beasts codebase is quite old, and implementing new vehicles requires a lot of effort and care from the programmers. if they rush too much, it risks steel beasts becoming unstable and more prone to crashing. even simple vehicles such as the BTR-80, and T-62 can take up to 2 weeks of programming time alone. not to mention the minimum of 1 month of work on an exterior model, and 2-3 months for an interior model. additionally there's a lot of other things constantly occupying the programmers, such as special customization contracts for different military customers. and as much as we'd love to do more for the civilian customers, the military customers is what ensures that Esim does not disappear.

I think most of the members understand that.

The military contracts pays the bills. (And have no issue with that)

I think in the interest of PE customer relations a post about what we can expect to see in the PE edition mite stop unrealistic requests being made and the usual round of why we cant Have said request.

[Captain_Colossus]

Hunting SEPs with the T62 would be fun. Not. :clin:

I probably would not even bother with scenarios like that.

I read a lot of the AAR reviews posted, and the scenarios that I see pretty much ignore a much broader range of possibilities, for example, players with T-62s and T-55s versus M60 or Leopard I tanks, or even scenarios where one force of T-62s aren't facing enemy tanks at all. Whenever I watch them, the outcome seem predictable, one side beats up on another with the best tanks. Maybe this is partly due to the fact that there are more playable modern vehicles simulated, or maybe because players want to be assured to get that kill as the big payoff.

Most of the scenarios I set up for myself these days use the older equipment, and it tends to play out much differently when kills tend to take place under 2 km. Because the tanks of older generations are much more vulnerable even to simple HEAT warheads and infantry, it's a different ballgame insofar as staying alive is concerned and the skill required.

Maybe one day we will have the means to hunt T-62s with M60s.

[Ssnake]

And in that fact lies a host of problems - or so I'm told by those claiming knowledge of software programming. Is this likely to change any time in the medium to distant future?

I'm not sure what your expectations are. What I can say is that whenever we touch an old piece of code that needs to be adapted for a new feature, the programmers will check out if it needs to be rewritten - and will do so, whenever necessary. Of course, replacing an old code module with a new one that has the exact same outward functionality (and it MUST be written like that) does not yield anything that the unsuspecting user would notice; it's like swapping tires on a car - it could drive before, and it can drive now, and it doesn't become faster or look substantially different; yet, the new tires make it more safe to drive, and it's important, even it it is an "invisible change".

So, that's going on on a daily basis with the SB Pro code base. At the same time we are of course also working on new stuff. And sometimes the "replace old for new code" activity is a prerequisite to the introduction of new features. While it in and of itself doesn't change things visibly, maybe without it some other feature couldn't be done. It's rather pointless to try and advertise these changes, so you will probably never learn about the full amount of work that is involved.

[Tjay]

Many thanks for the information. I know zero about programming, but I'm always being told that trying to add functionality to an old programme designed before such functionality was even envisioned is extremely difficult, and there comes a time when the old code simply collapses under the strain and the only thing to do is start again with a clean sheet of paper. Sound very expensive and time consuming, but I suppose might be the only solution in some cases.

[Ssnake]

I think in the interest of PE customer relations a post about what we can expect to see in the PE edition mite stop unrealistic requests being made and the usual round of why we cant Have said request.

Traditionally I try to refrain from any participation in speculations about what kind of new features are to be expected in future versions of SB Pro PE. If I start talking about our PLANS, and then the economic realities force us to change plans, then I have to start explaining why certain features won't make it into a coming release.

These explanations distract from the actual achievements, and I rather focus on what we have than on what's missing. Also, sometimes I cannot give a reasonable sounding explanation without disclosing information that isn't intended for public consumption. It might allow to draw conclusions about our customers, or about our general business plans that we may not be at liberty to discuss, or which we would rather not want to disclose.

So, feel free to write down wish lists, but don't expect me to chime in. Also, don't expect updates about what we're doing RIGHT NOW. The right moment to tell you all about it is when we're about to release a new version. At that point I can summarize all the changes that were made, and provide suitable context for each of these changes/feature additions.

I would even go so far to say that if you look at the release notes from version 2.4 until 3.0 you will notice certain common themes/unbroken development trends that you can probably extrapolate to some extent.

[Tjay]

That's actually the gist of what they usually say when someone gets too nit-picky.

Fine. I was trying to suggest a solution to MG's statement to the effect that eSIM are adverse to producing 'approximations' because the rivet counters always give them a hard time over perceived imperfections. I feel that if the product was labelled appropriately, then a standard repost to the moaners would be 'Go read the product descripiton. It is what it is. If you don't like it you don't have to use it. lf you have authenticated information that could improve it, please send, and we will try to incorporate it at the next update'.

I think the majority would be quite happy with that. As for the minority - well you just ignore them.

[Ssnake]

eSIM are adverse to producing 'approximations' because the rivet counters always give them a hard time over perceived imperfections.

Maybe we're giving that impression, but I don't think that it's substantiated by the facts. Pretty much any crew station without a 3D model of sights and instruments is "an approximation" - heck, every crew position in SB Pro is an approximation; they all are simplified models of reality.

The omission of "unknown" (=missing data) like a 3D interior of the Challenger is however something entirely different from filling in the blank spots with fantasy and speculation. That is something that we usually try to avoid.

[Volcano]

I read a lot of the AAR reviews posted, and the scenarios that I see pretty much ignore a much broader range of possibilities, for example, players with T-62s and T-55s versus M60 or Leopard I tanks, or even scenarios where one force of T-62s aren't facing enemy tanks at all. Whenever I watch them, the outcome seem predictable, one side beats up on another with the best tanks. Maybe this is partly due to the fact that there are more playable modern vehicles simulated, or maybe because players want to be assured to get that kill as the big payoff.

Well, i think it all comes down to the kill count. Some people will say they do not know how to use the T-62 or T-72, but when it all comes down to it, they just want to have a double digit kill count at the end of the scenario (as if it is relevant against those threats...).

[Tacbat]

I think in the interest of PE customer relations a post about what we can expect to see in the PE edition mite stop unrealistic requests being made and the usual round of why we cant Have said request.

Nothing will stop that. Ever.

[Marko]

Nothing will stop that. Ever.

LoL

I am under no illusions as to the impact of the wish list on future development for SB

I would speculate esim management may occasionally see a post that they consider

Worthy of consideration.

I personally use it for a bit of entertainment or what I would like to See. As i have stated Fully Realizing most of it will never be implemented.

In saying that I could not believe the amount of new models I wished for over the last two years that made it in to the last Update (with the exception of zombies and roaming Animals.) LoL

My point is I frequent a few other milsim forums they seem to be far more forthcoming in sharing future new model plans. admittedly there working to a different business model.

But I have to say it does generate a lot of interest. but with SB its a famine or a feast when

You guys do realise information it creates a genuine sense of enthusiasm on this site.

Something that can be lacking in-between updates. (IMO anyway)