3.0 crewable vehicles.

[Marko]

Snnake already mentioned in a previous post that the T-62 was getting a new model.

+1 for a playable T-62.

Although i would not like to face a M1_A2 in one.

[Apocalypse 31]

+1 for a playable T-62.

Although i would not like to face M1_A2 in one.

But if we had a playable M-60.....

:-(

[Marko]

But if we had a playable M-60.....

:-(

Homer posted a good video a while ago.

Showing how the two Tanks compare.

[Volcano]

I was hoping we were beyond the days of adding non-playable vehicles

We always need targets...

[enigma6584]

We always need targets...

And they provide the immersive atmosphere of the particular mission and time period.

[enigma6584]

Hoorah!! We are getting a crewable T-72M with crewed positions!

[TankHunter]

Nice. You can never go wrong with more T-72s.

[Apocalypse 31]

We always need targets...

uh....AI?

[Volcano]

uh....AI?

Not sure what you are after here. Maybe we should take out all the non-playable vehicles in your version?

[Apocalypse 31]

Not sure what you are after here. Maybe we should take out all the non-playable vehicles in your version?

I'm not sure what you're after here...?

Targets? Yes we can use AI-manned vehicles for targets. They don't have to be limited to non-crewable vehicles.

[Volcano]

I'm not sure what you're after here...?

Targets? Yes we can use AI-manned vehicles for targets. They don't have to be limited to non-crewable vehicles.

Not sure what I am after? I will tell you: I am trying to make sense of your one liner posts.

But really, it is not your fault. I just don't think you understand the process. I am a little too exhausted to explain it, but I will try:

When making games and simulations, it takes a lot of resources to make content. Well, in our case, making a vehicle requires a model, sounds, technical data, not to mention lots of research in armor and performance. This is just to make the AI only vehicle, and this process takes at least a month. To make a vehicle playable, it then requires programmers, and (usually) an interior model. An interior model is not always required obviously, but if it is, then that is another two months. So lets be generous though, and say the vehicle does not need an interior (because if it did, we are already at three months of work on one vehicle), it still requires at least a month of programmer time, usually (so this is two to three months at minimum).

So, we have a dilemma, do we not? Either we make only one vehicle at a time, only those that can be made playable -- and we end up with MAYBE two vehicles each update. Or, we make all the vehicles we can, and maybe the ones playable that we are able to, so we end up with the same number of playable vehicles we otherwise would, yet we also end up with a lot of non-playable vehicles as well (because these do not require programmer resources). So actually, there is no dilemma at all, the only realistic possibility is: same number of playable vehicles but no non-playable vehicles, or the same number of playable vehicles with the addition of non-playable vehicles. Doing that, everyone ends up with more content to use in scenarios.

I don't know about you, but I would rather have the non-playable T-55, T-80, T-72B, BMP-1, BMP-2, BRDM-2 AT etc, rather than not have them at all, because it sure is nice to have them as AI controlled targets rather than ohhh, just having T-72M1, BTR-80, and BRDM-2 as the only Red vehicles, for example.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Volcano
clarification

[Apocalypse 31]

Not sure what I am after? I will tell you: I am trying to make sense of your one liner posts.

But really, it is not your fault. I just don't think you understand the process. I am a little too exhausted to explain it, but I will try:

When making games and simulations, it takes a lot of resources to make content. Well, in our case, making a vehicle requires a model, sounds, technical data, not to mention lots of research in armor and performance. This is just to make the AI only vehicle, and this process takes at least a month. To make a vehicle playable, it then requires programmers, and (usually) an interior model. An interior model is not always required obviously, but if it is, then that is another two months. So lets be generous though, and say the vehicle does not need an interior (because if it did, we are already at three months of work on one vehicle), it still requires at least a month of programmer time, usually (so this is two to three months at minimum).

So, we have a dilemma, do we not? Either we make only one vehicle at a time, only those that can be made playable -- and we end up with MAYBE two vehicles each update. Or, we make all the vehicles we can, and maybe the ones playable that we are able to, so we end up with the same number of playable vehicles we otherwise would, yet we also end up with a lot of non-playable vehicles as well (because these do not require programmer resources). So actually, there is no dilemma at all, the only realistic possibility is: same number of playable vehicles but no non-playable vehicles, or the same number of playable vehicles with the addition of non-playable vehicles. Doing that, everyone ends up with more content to use in scenarios.

I don't know about you, but I would rather have the non-playable T-55, T-80, T-72B, BMP-1, BMP-2, BRDM-2 AT etc, rather than not have them at all, because it sure is nice to have them as AI controlled targets rather than ohhh, just having T-72M1, BTR-80, and BRDM-2 as the only Red vehicles, for example.

I've been here long enough to know the process and the dilemma. I would just rather have the playable vehicles only. :shocked:

I'm probably in the minority, but that's how I feel.

EDIT - Just out of curiosity, which takes longer;

2 playable vehicles or 5 nonplayable vehicles?

Also - has there been any consideration to placeholder interiors for functionality - ala RWS

[Volcano]

I've been here long enough to know the process and the dilemma. I would just rather have the playable vehicles only. :shocked:

I'm probably in the minority, but that's how I feel.

Well, you are probably not in the minority. I imagine everyone (including myself) all want more playable vehicles. We do what we can though. Personally, I would like ALL vehicles to be playable one day, or at least all the major tanks and PCs, past and present.

EDIT - Just out of curiosity, which takes longer;

2 playable vehicles or 5 nonplayable vehicles?

Also - has there been any consideration to placeholder interiors for functionality - ala RWS

It depends on the vehicle, but usually two playable vehicles might take as much resources as making twice that many non-playable ones (or maybe three to four times that, if it has an interior).

Yes, I think in some cases we made sacrifices with placeholder/no interiors and you will likely see more "playables" with that approach in the announcements over the next month.

[Captain_Colossus]

T-80 let out of the bag?

I prefer the status quo- which has moved along much faster in the past in getting new vehicles, whether player crewed or not.

[Apocalypse 31]

Yes, I think in some cases we made sacrifices with placeholder/no interiors and you will likely see more "playables" with that approach in the announcements over the next month.

A playable with a placeholder interior is still a playable

:-)

[Volcano]

T-80 let out of the bag?

I prefer the status quo- which has moved along much faster in the past in getting new vehicles, whether player crewed or not.

No, that was a typo. I originally said "T-80" but I forgot a "B" and an "R" (BTR-80). I corrected it, but not fast enough apparently.

[Guest Killjoy]

Do my eyes deceive me?

The wish list worked?!

[Marko]

I am going to say something I have never said before.

Esim take my money.LoL

I suspect not but will the T_72BV be playable.

Either way having the M variant opens the way for some interesting scenario.

Great work Guys

[Gibsonm]

Either way having the M variant opens the way for some interesting scenario.

Typo maybe??

The T-72M, T-72M1 and T-72M4 have been around for a while.

The T-72M1 even being playable.

I'm sure you haven't overlooked it.

[Marko]

Typo maybe??

The T-72M, T-72M1 and T-72M4 have been around for a while.

The T-72M1 even being playable.

I'm sure you haven't overlooked it.

I meant we now have a playable T_72M.

To complement the T-72M1

[mpow66m]

I meant we now have a playable T_72M.

To complement the T-72M1

how different are those 2 tanks?

[Ssnake]

In a nutshell: The T-72M1 has smoke dischargers, the T-72M does not.

[lavictoireestlavie]

I also read that ther t-72m1´s armor is a little thicker and the overall package is a weee bit more advanced compared to the t-72m.

[Ssnake]

It depends on the vehicle, but usually two playable vehicles might take as much resources as making twice that many non-playable ones (or maybe three to four times that, if it has an interior).

My estimate is a lot more conservative. A fully playable vehicle of the level of fidelity comparable to the Leopard 2 will usually take nine months development time. In some cases the time may be closer to 18 months (I'm looking at you, CV90/30!). That doesn't mean that there's non-stop work of the entire team of just that single vehicle. But as far as the time between, say, signing a development contract to the army's signature of the acceptance test is concerned, usually about a year will pass. And that will only happen if we arrive on the scene before the contract is actually signed to document the vehicle in question and to negotiate the level of detail on location.

Then there are of course vehicles that are "playable" but so trivial that I'd be ashamed to use them extensively in our marketing campaign, e.g. the M113A2. From a functional perspective there's but a cal .50 to model. Of course, that can be done much faster.

Anyway, if an artists makes a 3D model and offers it to us and it is of good quality, we will usually accept it even if there was no actual development contract between eSim Games and the artist. And then it usually ends up as a non-playable vehicle. Maybe, if the opportunity arises, we will eventually make it playable at a later point. So, it doesn't really matter if you only care for playable vehicles. We don't have the capacity to do just that, and I don't think we ever will. So this is one of life's compromises that you'll probably have to accept, if only grudgingly. I suppose there are situations that are much worse.

[Ssnake]

Do my eyes deceive me?

The wish list worked?!

Of course it does. It's just much easier to fill the list than to actually implement the ideas on it. So we will never "finish" it, but that doesn't mean that everything on it will be ignored by us.