Jump to content
Apocalypse 31

Improvements for Dismounts?

Recommended Posts

Are you referring to the artwork, or something else?

Because under the hood, they are pretty much exactly the same. Immersion aside more MG and rifle models will not change one iota in the fidelity of results or procedures in this simulation. Since we will never model the minor details of these models anyway (whether a certain MG might produce more stoppages or if a model is heavier or needs more frequent barrel changes, ...) the question is if we shouldn't stop as early as possible before creating false expectations.

I'll be honest with you: I find small arms boring and find many self-claimed experts in this area bordering on the compulsive-obsessive. I know that this stuff is really popular. There's an entire games category that seems to revolve about the question whether a 7.62mm round or a Lapua Magnum is the ammo of choice. Whether the penetration power at muzzle is 10mm RHAe or 9.8 or 11.1 - really, I don't care at all about it, and neither should any player of Steel Beasts because this simply isn't the point of the whole simulation.

That said, there is a bit of work being done in this area because my personal preferences are not the only guideline for the development of SB Pro. ;) Volcano has rightfully knocked me over the head for this shameless display of small arms ignorance on my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you referring to the artwork, or something else?

Because under the hood, they are pretty much exactly the same. Immersion aside more MG and rifle models will not change one iota in the fidelity of results or procedures in this simulation..

Immersion, realism both I would say. A lot went into having all the national armies uniforms. To me it jus seems like not too much of a stretch to have a Warsaw Pact grunt with a RPK, not a stolen MG3.

I'll be honest with you: I find small arms boring and find many self-claimed experts in this area bordering on the compulsive-obsessive..

I am not asking for ARMA, just a represenation of small arms beyond what is currently modeled. Call it O/C but a US infantryman with a MG3, is well.....wrong. I know its an armor simulation but playing a skirmish or two with the grunts is fun.

That said, there is a bit of work being done in this area because my personal preferences are not the only guideline for the development of SB Pro. ;) Volcano has rightfully knocked me over the head for this shameless display of small arms ignorance on my part.

Thank God for Volcano!:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing personal Ssnake but im UPS..ing volcano a six pack. It’s hard to be picky among the utter splendor of this update, and I understand the seeming triviality of 7.62 in the shadow of BM-21s, so please don’t take this as a gripe. However… the LMG is no little matter to us grunts, there is emotional attachment and relationships here. And that little extra immersion goes a long way, which is why we spend the time to skin uniforms in detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, Ssnake and Volcano pulling of the Good cop and the bad cop! :drink:

Me for one loves Infantry and want "more more moooooore" of it, so this sounds good :)

/KT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Immersion, realism both I would say.

Realism has nothing to do with it. It could be invisible, or a pink box - as long as the desired effect is there (a stream of adequately powered bullets in a cadence matching the original equipment) the realism of procedures and results remains the same.

It's all about immersion, nothing else.

Some will care about certain model inaccuracies with a recent Leopard 1 addition that others would never spot at all and claim that the reputation of the whole team hinges on that issue. So, everybody has a certain pet peeve, and especially in the field of small arms we all know - if we're honest about it - that the desire for more details will never be satisfied. If we add more MGs, the focus will shift on the assault rifles. If it's not the ARs, it'll be certain animations.

A lot went into having all the national armies uniforms. To me it jus seems like not too much of a stretch to have a Warsaw Pact grunt with a RPK, not a stolen MG3.

You see, all these different uniforms are just three base uniforms, the rest is texture variation. Guns, on the other hand, require each an individual 3D model, each model must be integrated by a programmer, and every model creates a long-term maintenance issue. So it actually IS a significant difference.

I am not asking for ARMA, just a represenation of small arms beyond what is currently modeled.

See, it's just a variation of what I wrote above. No matter what, we HAVE to draw a line somewhere, and someone will always lobby for shifting the line a bit further to cover [insert your favorite gun/detail]. Like I wrote, I'm not totally against adding a bit more, but it certainly isn't a high priority issue, and I just know that even if we reach a level where you are happy, someone else will take over and ask for more. ;)

The question isn't if we couldn't add more small arms to the object library. It is about what other features will have to be given up for them, and whether the trade-off is positive. Let's say we would have added all these MGs in the last twelve months. It would have cost us at least two military vehicles and probably a larger number of old vehicles for which we couldn't have added normal and specular maps. In addition, probably ten to fifteen bugs that would still be there on the release day. So, that is the real price of such a request. Therefore, I treat it as a visual extravaganza.

Of course, the argument above applies to any other feature project that we have. Unlike other features with a similar trade-off however it is purely a visual thing that does neither change the tactical scope nor helps to improve the user interface or opens a new aspect in multiplayer games. Therefore, IMO, it does not deserve an elevated priority level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moar Guns!

(Damn. I need to play more KSP :( )

Personally I would strongly suggest:

FN MAG (M240, GPMG) (Been around since the 50s and armies which doesn't use the MG3 or PKM uses this. ('cept the French, they always do their own thing :biggrin: )

PKM (Russian version of the FN MAG)

DSHK (Russian .50 cal)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose the impact of LMGs might be more of an organizational question than technical. Squads with LMGs might tend to have more LMGs in the squad (several fireteams with individual LMGs), whereas squads equipped with GPMGs might tend to make do with one MG. Not sure if this can't be done now, though, I'm not very familiar with how infantry can be organised in the editor. And I certainly haven't studied different squad structures in different armies in detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand the seeming triviality of 7.62 in the shadow of BM-21s, so please don’t take this as a gripe. However… the LMG is no little matter to us grunts, there is emotional attachment and relationships here. And that little extra immersion goes a long way, which is why we spend the time to skin uniforms in detail.

Well said CATA, just what I was thinking.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well there's no jaffle iron, brewing vessel or bivvy bag modelled but you don't see me complaining. ;)

HA...HA...HA, at least we won't have to suffer that train-smash.... :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, everybody has a certain pet peeve, and especially in the field of small arms we all know - if we're honest about it - that the desire for more details will never be satisfied. If we add more MGs, the focus will shift on the assault rifles. If it's not the ARs, it'll be certain animations.

Must be dispiriting that a vociferous minority always focus on what ISN'T rather than what IS. But responses so far show that you are pleasing most of the people most of the time - which is an enormous:) achievement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there is one factor. if your in a urban environment and hear an MG firing it would be Good To be able to tell the difference.IE friend or foe. all MG's have a unique sound.

May be a PKM sound for opfor forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well there is one factor. if your in a urban environment and hear an MG firing it would be Good To be able to tell the difference.IE friend or foe. all MG's have a unique sound.

May be a PKM sound for opfor forces.

That would be good, it would make it easier for my blue infantry to find the Red ones....:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got to admit that I agree with SSnake on some of his points about the LMG being carried by Inf. To a limited degree I don't really care about what the gun itself looks like....If I'm running a simulation where THAT much detail is essential, I have to admit that I'd probably be using another program completely. What I am more interested in is some of the Inf behaviours, and having them more accurately replicate reality, so as to develop a better combined arms simulation. Inf formations, their ability to jump walls or mousehole into buildings are all part of this. If I was to be really, really demanding, I'd be advocating for wire obstacles, command detonated mines (claymores), better modelled fighting positions (including trenches), and sudden and irrevocable death to the artillery model which instantly kills all Inf within sight of the burst....... not to exclude yet another one, the inclusion of an"injured" status to Inf. Crew can be wounded and later "fixed" by medics, so why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on some of the work I have done recently, I think bailed out crews need to be accounted for/simulated, especially with regard to how most NATO and NATO like armies consider casualties as a whole.

Right now there is some serious discussion about grouping APCs with sub-units for crew recovery, and right now, SB couldn't simulate that.

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moar Guns!

(Damn. I need to play more KSP :( )

Personally I would strongly suggest:

FN MAG (M240, GPMG) (Been around since the 50s and armies which doesn't use the MG3 or PKM uses this. ('cept the French, they always do their own thing :biggrin: )

PKM (Russian version of the FN MAG)

DSHK (Russian .50 cal)

We're getting the M240, look at the technical pics again. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also understand and accept Ssnake’s points, so I am not going to labor the point of small arms, however…a brew kit! Now we are talking infantry priorities and fundamentals. Regarding sounds, those can be changed today to your liking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I would strongly suggest:

FN MAG (M240, GPMG) (Been around since the 50s and armies which doesn't use the MG3 or PKM uses this. ('cept the French, they always do their own thing :biggrin: )

PKM (Russian version of the FN MAG)

I agree. From my perspective that would pretty much do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well there is one factor. if your in a urban environment and hear an MG firing it would be Good To be able to tell the difference.IE friend or foe. all MG's have a unique sound.

May be a PKM sound for opfor forces.

Well there is already Tacbat's small arms mod, which gave e.g. "AK" and "M16" a different sound !

Really interesting !

But ... it doesn't work anymore with the latest version of SB (something about the volume level IIRC).

Now, if this would function again in 3.0 ...

Would be awesome.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/256/p13_fileid/1577

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regards the new pics of the Brit armor, note the screen shot of the dismounts patrolling down a street (ya got to love that) in front of the Worrier; it’s interesting to see them in what looks like staged file formation? Not having the ability to adjust Inf formations is this just an illusion in this screen shot or a consequence of the new path finding model?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infantry may now crawl, walk crouched, walk upright, and sprint. Crawling and sprinting are the most exhausting movements, walking upright has no fatigue penalty.

The foot patrol does not implicate formations for squads. It is planned, but not yet implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Infantry may now crawl, walk crouched, walk upright, and sprint. Crawling and sprinting are the most exhausting movements, walking upright has no fatigue penalty.

Awesome. What determines when the different behaviours are used; AI, scripting (or both), or other?

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...