Has the feel of driving over rolling terrain changed since the original?

[Rangoon]

Here is an unimportant curiosity for those of you who played the original. I haven't played the original in a long time, but I recall driving across rolling hills in an M1 while turned out and being so impressed with the feeling of inertia in my viewpoint (TC's head/eyes) vs the machine. It seemed at the time that things felt very real while feeling the tank begin to climb out of a valley while my body was still compressing downward. Or something...something that gave me the feeling of being physically in the tank while rolling over terrain.

In Steel Beasts Pro PE, I don't get that. Is that because Pro PE models more accurately the suspension of an M1 which is tighter than the modeling in the original? Am I misremembering? Or was that element consciously done away with?

[oscar19681]

I do know that SBP models suspension to a certain degree . But how accuratly this is Done i dont really know .

[BigBadVuk]

Maybe it was just a higher FPS?

I have quite good PC and im running this sim on max. details, but from time to time FPS can go down. If you have an aged rig, this could be the reason.

Just my 2 cents.

[Ssnake]

I haven't played the original in a long time, but I recall driving across rolling hills in an M1 while turned out and being so impressed with the feeling of inertia in my viewpoint (TC's head/eyes) vs the machine. ...

In Steel Beasts Pro PE, I don't get that. Is that because Pro PE models more accurately the suspension of an M1 which is tighter than the modeling in the original?

I don't think so. One problem is of course that there's no objective measurement possible for the degree of immersion that any player may feel. Your perception most certainly has shifted over time. Another factor is that the old graphics had at least blob shadows (finally we'll get shadows back in a few weeks), that may also be an influencing factor. Generally the old engine probably did the impression of soft, rolling terrain better because that was essentially the only thing that it could do, but that it did well. It's probably a mix of all these different factors.

[Rangoon]

Maybe it was just a higher FPS?

I have quite good PC and im running this sim on max. details, but from time to time FPS can go down. If you have an aged rig, this could be the reason.

Just my 2 cents.

Good thought, but I do have a modern rig and run on max with very smooth framerates.

I don't think so. One problem is of course that there's no objective measurement possible for the degree of immersion that any player may feel. Your perception most certainly has shifted over time. Another factor is that the old graphics had at least blob shadows (finally we'll get shadows back in a few weeks), that may also be an influencing factor. Generally the old engine probably did the impression of soft, rolling terrain better because that was essentially the only thing that it could do, but that it did well. It's probably a mix of all these different factors.

Thanks for the insight. Each time I play, I find myself missing that organic feel of the terrain beneath the treads; whether it's the rose-tinted helmet visor of nostalgia or an actual phenomenon. I wondered if it was determined that the old suspension modeling was too soft, or if it just never made it into the new sim. It's also hard to imagine anything that heavy and solid having much give to it, but it did do wonders for the experience of the blissfully ignorant like myself.

[Hedgehog]

No, I think you were right in your original post Rangoon.

I remember the view would exponentially speed up when elevating/traversing. (Slow then fast)

Like the TC's head weighed 30 tonnes.

Just my thoughts.

[Captain_Colossus]

Terrain settings in SB Pro PE may influence traction, whereas in Steel Beasts it could feel more slick without as much friction.

In Steel Beasts Pro, there is much finer degree of steering control, it may feel as though the machine doesn't get away from you as much because steering inputs in Steel Beasts made the vehicle turn in larger increments and rather than feeling hands on, felt more like commands issued to the driver, if you like.

[Froggy]

Terrain was actually smoother with the old graphic engine because the landscape mesh was finer than with current engine.

Height maps were limited to 125m of altitude range because the grey scale of raw format was small.

With current engine, the same scale allow hundreds meters of altitude range, but gives a sharper look for landscape, and larger tiles (12m iirc.)

[Ssnake]

Neither the horizontal nor the vertical terrain mesh resolution have changed. It was 12.5 x 12.5 x .392...m³ back then as it is now. The main difference was that all maps were limited to 8 bit vertical elevation, which is exactly 100m. Now we have a 16 bit range for the elevation, which equals 25,700m height variation (= +/-12,850m from sea level).

[Rangoon]

I remember the view would exponentially speed up when elevating/traversing. (Slow then fast)

Like the TC's head weighed 30 tonnes.

I think this describes it best. It wasn't about turning, but about seperate bodies of inertia - the tank vs the TC's head/view. I recall feeling this squishing feeling as I hit a valley, and a suspension/expansion when cresting a hill. And maybe I'm exaggerating it in my recollection, but it sure felt cool sailing over those hills in the M1 and feeling the tank roll along beneath me. Now it feels more like I am fixed to the tank, as if my body/head are strapped in tight to the turret.

As I said in the OP, it's minor. The sim is so much more than an immersion tool. It's a tactical simulator. And I've never driven a tank, so I have no idea what it really feels like. Although I have seen videos where the TC is turned out, and his head is moving back and forth as the tank changes roll/pitch. I would think the vertical expansion/compression would be there, too. But I think simulating the roll/pitch inertia would make a player motion sick. Somehow the original SB got the feeling right. I just wondered if I was remembering it wrong, or if it really did change. Sounds like a little of both, from Ssnake's comments.

[Captain_Colossus]

Based on Ssnake's comments, it sounds as though it is doubtful that there is a software difference in this respect, but that doesn't rule out you may still have a subjective impression that there is a difference. The graphics engines are different, but that doesn't mean what's under the hood is still the same.

On the other hand, the bouncing motion of the TC head is different now because things like bumpiness of the terrain is now variable- on a high setting, it can be way more choppy and jittery.

[Ssnake]

I think we reduced the overall amplitude of the vehicle's movement as it was somewhat excessive back then. This would certainly influence the overall perception of the vehicles' agility.

[Rangoon]

Sorry to dig this back up, but every time I play, I notice this. And even if it's just my perception and/or I'm not remembering it right, I thought of another way to describe it. And don't get me wrong: while I stay for all the detail, depth, and sophistication of this sim, and certainly the emphasis on tactical combat, the thing that made me fall in love with Steel Beasts way back when was the feel of the ride. Stupid, I know.

So what I notice now is that the tanks slide over the ground rather than drive over it. The tracks move, and they angle with the terrain sort of, but they don't feel or appear to grip and drive and roll with the terrain. And I doubt they did back in [EDIT: Original Steel Beasts], but I had the impression of driving that tank over the rolling terrain. So even if I'm observing a tank, I see it move up/down/angle in fits, not smoothly. Things jerk into their new position or angle rather than blend naturally. So that combined with the lack of feel in the suspension (up/down of the TC in the hatch) leaves me nostalgic for that initial "a ha" moment I had while rolling along those old maps, peering over the next hill and it all just feeling so awesome.

And this is not me complaining at this point. I'm just wondering if that is a value that eSim holds for the future? Do you think it will be incorporated into this engine (not sure if it's possible) or is something like that just way too far down on the list of priorities to think about? Obviously in Steel Beasts 10, it will be there, but will it be in 3? 5?

[wolfstriked]

You got me interested in this and so I went searching for Steel Beasts Gold edition to see if there is a difference.I think I know what you miss.If you look at other tanks in Gold edition you will see them dive more under braking and same with acceleration.Hence,when in 1st person you see more movement as the main gun has to elevate and drop more trying to stay on target and this is what gives you that feeling of movement....IMO.

Also,and this is relative to something I have posted about in past here is the FOV was much smaller in Gold edition.An issue I have with Steel Beasts is due to the FOV....or rather two issues I just realized.First is that with a larger FOV its harder to scan treelines and this is further compounded by scanning pixelized tree lines.

Second issue I have with the wider FOV just hit me right now that I THINK is also tied to FOV.The issue I have is that I get no sense of scale when unbuttoned in Steel beastsPRO.I find when I am running along and I look left at the hill I am running aprrallel to I get no sense of how much of my tank is showing above the ridge line.I remember a phenomenon from my GPL racing days where the wider the FOV the better sense of speed but a loss of elevation changes.When you went to a smaller FOV you actually felt like you were climbing hills and dropping down them better.

Just my observations....carry on.:c:

EDIT-----watch 7:04 to see what I mean.

[Rangoon]

EDIT-----watch 7:04 to see what I mean.

Wow, and look at 1:57 the way the impact hitting the target in the rear left swings it around. Would that ever happen in the current version? And/or is that realistic?

But yes, thanks for finding that video! It really does demonstrate what I'm talking about. You hit at least one of the nails on the head with that starting/stopping observation. That is a big part of what I'm remembering.

I knew I wasn't totally off my rocker. Oddly enough, everything looks and "feels" smooth in that version. Feels like there is more inertia simulated or something, and the rounded hills seem more round rather than stepped while being driven over. The impacts, the starts/stops, the terrain. And insanely heavy vehicles.

[GSprocket]

Wow, and look at 1:57 the way the impact hitting the target in the rear left swings it around. Would that ever happen in the current version? And/or is that realistic?

That was the nearside track being lost. The same effect is still seen in the current version (drag/traction/speed dependent). I see it quite often with the BMP, rather less with T55, which are my 'hard targets' for my most commonly played scenario (modified Australian TT).

[wolfstriked]

Here is a 2011 SB video which has the higher tank inertia movement and a narrower FOV.I think it looks perfect like this and makes you feel more like being inside the tank.

[GSprocket]

Here is a 2011 SB video which has the higher tank inertia movement and a narrower FOV.I think it looks perfect like this and makes you feel more like being inside the tank.

That one is definitely a ProPE video with the 'current' inertia and FOV. Perhaps the problem is what views you use within the vehicles, or what the terrain parameters are set at in your scenarios. There is a huge difference in 'silkiness' possible within the map/scenario design.

[wolfstriked]

That one is definitely a ProPE video with the 'current' inertia and FOV. Perhaps the problem is what views you use within the vehicles, or what the terrain parameters are set at in your scenarios. There is a huge difference in 'silkiness' possible within the map/scenario design.

I think your right.Looks similar to when I go to vision blocks.In regards to vision blocks,I think there is a bug in the M1A1/M1A1HA in that I cant seem to look out them.

[Rangoon]

I think there is a bug in the M1A1/M1A1HA in that I cant seem to look out them.

It's true; it's a known bug.

[MDF]

You got me interested in this and so I went searching for Steel Beasts Gold edition to see if there is a difference.I think I know what you miss.If you look at other tanks in Gold edition you will see them dive more under braking and same with acceleration.Hence,when in 1st person you see more movement as the main gun has to elevate and drop more trying to stay on target and this is what gives you that feeling of movement....IMO.

. . .

EDIT-----watch 7:04 to see what I mean.

I never played the original SB, so that clip was a blast. What's clear, though, at least from the segment starting at ~7:04, is that the TC's view remains absolutely fixed in reference to the horizon, much like a stabilized gunsight. That might explain why the motion of the turret/hull seems more pronounced. A quick check of SB ProPE seems to me like the TC's view definitely bobs around in relation to the horizon and also in relation to the hull/turret. (I only tried a few minutes in a mission with fairly even terrain, so maybe one with rougher terrain might me a better barometer).

[Rangoon]

That was the nearside track being lost. The same effect is still seen in the current version (drag/traction/speed dependent). I see it quite often with the BMP, rather less with T55, which are my 'hard targets' for my most commonly played scenario (modified Australian TT).

That's really cool, although if it's the track being lost, how can he come forward with that right yaw like he does immediately after the hit (sorry, aviation term...)? It seems more like it's the momentum from the round hitting the far rear (far from the center of gravity) causing it to swing. Also, though, really cool. Whichever the cause may be. Maybe he was on wet grass (the river bank).

I vividly remember that moment I "grew a turret" over Steel Beasts (sorry), though, and it was about the revelation in real terms that I was not driving a gocart, or a car, or a truck, or a boat, or a submarine, but a huge f***ing tank. In SB PRO I lost that sensation, but gained an immensely beautiful thing that looks like a tank and acts like a tank, even if it doesn't feel like one. (Not that I've driven one IRL.)

So I wouldn't trade this one in for the original, I just hope that the day comes we get that feeling back. I still love this version for all of its improvements. But miss the thing that made me want to be an armchair tanker. All the fascinating bits (tactics, ammunition choice, communication, recon, formations, armor, stealth, etc.) came after that initial "you had me at...inertia" moment.

EDIT: also, in that first video posted, look at 2:41-2:48 - notice how the vehicle surges forward and the chassis shifts with the suspension, and then when the camera pans, how the tracks hug the terrain from left to right and fore to aft. They follow the terrain instead of just popping onto it. And 3:29-3:34 the starting stopping, the swaying of the gun as the TC stays level and the chassis flows with the inertia and then the waving terrain.

[GSprocket]

"Losing a track" can have several different consequences...

On firm ground, if the track remains on the vehicle, but the transmission seizes, then it will be as if full braking is applied to that side only. The vehicle will slew strongly to that side and may roll depending on speed. One or both tracks may jump as the vehicle turns uncontrollably.

If the track fails then braking is lost on that side. this may cause an uncontrolled turn away from the damaged track on firm ground, or if both are lost an uncontrolled coasting. (Also in the case of control of driver incapacitation it is possible).

On softer ground the vehicle will roll forward until it drives off the remaining track then bog on the damaged side, rapidly coming to a halt, again with a more or less strong turn. This is likely to be less severe than on very firm ground as the deeper sinkage causes much higher resistance and more rapid slowing to a halt, especially when turning.

If the second track isn't lost, then some *limited* ability to steer might be present ~ I wonder if SB gets this limitation correct for various extreme conditions (i.e. on very hard going the limited resistance of the undriven side may give little for the track on the other side to push against if the track is completely off, and in very soft going there may be insufficient traction to obtain any movement at all with the very deep bogging of bare wheel stations).

[Rangoon]

"Losing a track" can have several different consequences...

On firm ground, if the track remains on the vehicle, but the transmission seizes, then it will be as if full braking is applied to that side only. The vehicle will slew strongly to that side and may roll depending on speed. One or both tracks may jump as the vehicle turns uncontrollably.

If the track fails then braking is lost on that side. this may cause an uncontrolled turn away from the damaged track on firm ground, or if both are lost an uncontrolled coasting. (Also in the case of control of driver incapacitation it is possible).

On softer ground the vehicle will roll forward until it drives off the remaining track then bog on the damaged side, rapidly coming to a halt, again with a more or less strong turn. This is likely to be less severe than on very firm ground as the deeper sinkage causes much higher resistance and more rapid slowing to a halt, especially when turning.

If the second track isn't lost, then some *limited* ability to steer might be present ~ I wonder if SB gets this limitation correct for various extreme conditions (i.e. on very hard going the limited resistance of the undriven side may give little for the track on the other side to push against if the track is completely off, and in very soft going there may be insufficient traction to obtain any movement at all with the very deep bogging of bare wheel stations).

Thanks for that explanation.

[wolfstriked]

I never played the original SB, so that clip was a blast. What's clear, though, at least from the segment starting at ~7:04, is that the TC's view remains absolutely fixed in reference to the horizon, much like a stabilized gunsight. That might explain why the motion of the turret/hull seems more pronounced. A quick check of SB ProPE seems to me like the TC's view definitely bobs around in relation to the horizon and also in relation to the hull/turret. (I only tried a few minutes in a mission with fairly even terrain, so maybe one with rougher terrain might me a better barometer).

Yes,I see what you mean.Now I am completely lost!:luxhello: