Armored Warfare in open beta

[dejawolf]

When you see negative comments about SB Pro, they mainly hinge on the outdated graphics. It is the 21st Century and computers have come a long way since SVGA graphics. Unless and until SP Pro does something about upgrading their graphics to modern standards, they will never come close to competing with the rest of the tank-gaming world. I know I know...every runs to the "simulation accuracy" excuse. But that really doesn't fly any more. Even if it is a 100% accurate simulator (I don't think SB Pro is, it's just more accurate than the competition), poor graphics will kill it's popularity real fast. If SB Pro continues to lag behind in this respect, then it can be the most accurate tank simulator in the world, but it will be out of the competition, except for a very small amount of diehard fans. When you sell SB Pro for $115, you better have the best of everything on it. That includes graphics. Especially when the competition, and that would be every tank game/simulation out there, has graphics superior to SB Pro. I am more than a little mystified that owners of SB Pro are so willing to accept substandard graphics, and then accept the excuse that the makers don't have public gaming as their priority. Are we all supposed to feel "elite" because countries don't care if they use outdated DOS graphics in their version, as long as they consider the program a "simulation"??:confused:

Now before the fanboys start ripping me a new a-hole, understand I bought the full $115 license, the DVD, and the manual. So I am not someone who has no real investment in the program. I want SB Pro to actually be "the best of the best". In it's current form, I don't think it is. Heck, most people never even heard of it. But before it starts looking for a bigger player base, it badly needs graphics improvement. Saying 'they aren't all that interested in the public version of this sim' just ain't gonna fly any more.

If SB Pro is just a "hobby" from E-Sim and not really due real consideration for improvement by them, then E-Sim should sell it to someone who really cares about improving it. It's that simple. Now feel free to :nuke: my post, I got a thick skin. :bigsmile:

no i agree, SB graphics are badly outdated. even after we did some pretty significant steps towards correcting this, it is still outdated.

but i'd just like to say it's a testament to the gameplay that despite the bad graphics, people still love SB.

anyways, updating the graphics is a massive undertaking.

first of all, you'd need a modern lighting engine.

esim games went halfway on this. updated the vehicles and buildings to accept specular maps and normal maps, but the terrain, trees and ground clutter got no love.

we don't have any way of adding individual lights in SB. to add this feature, the whole terrain engine needs to be rebuilt, which is a gargantuan undertaking.

we finally got shadows in SB after nearly 10 years. but they only works at really short range, so distant objects still look bland and uninteresting. and again, trees cast no shadows.

most other games use a shadow algorithms called cascading shadows, that reduce the shadowmap resolution over distance in order to draw them further out.

http://developer.download.nvidia.com/SDK/10.5/opengl/src/cascaded_shadow_maps/doc/cascaded_shadow_maps.pdf

it was very popular in games back in 2005.

SB uses only a single shadow map, a much simpler method used mostly in fighting games from 1999. better than nothing i guess.

we got specular maps, and normal maps, which blows some life into the models,

but the water looks like it came out of a game from 1998.

there's also the fact that a lot of our models are old.

we got over 100 vehicles, and myself i can hope to update only 12 models a year at most.

Roguesnake might be able to update half that many.

most of the buildings got a heavy makeover by a guy named phil, with higher resolution textures. we also had a huge influx of buildings after only having a barn and 5 houses for years.

our ground textures are very old, and ground clutter even more so.

the grass textures hasn't been updated in the past 10 years.

the trees will look bad no matter what you do with them since they don't have any lighting.

we don't have any rock models to cover our mountains with to make them look more like mountains and less like giant mounds.

so yeah, i don't think anyone is fanboying over the graphics.

but again, what we have in SB, is rock-solid gameplay, and a damn fine simulation of a bunch of modern vehicles.

and to our military customers, and personal customers thats what matters.

[Marko]

no i agree, SB graphics are badly outdated. even after we did some pretty significant steps towards correcting this, it is still outdated.

but i'd just like to say it's a testament to the gameplay that despite the bad graphics, people still love SB.

anyways, updating the graphics is a massive undertaking.

first of all, you'd need a modern lighting engine.

esim games went halfway on this. updated the vehicles and buildings to accept specular maps and normal maps, but the terrain, trees and ground clutter got no love.

we don't have any way of adding individual lights in SB. to add this feature, the whole terrain engine needs to be rebuilt, which is a gargantuan undertaking.

we finally got shadows in SB after nearly 10 years. but they only works at really short range, so distant objects still look bland and uninteresting. and again, trees cast no shadows.

most other games use a shadow algorithms called cascading shadows, that reduce the shadowmap resolution over distance in order to draw them further out.

http://developer.download.nvidia.com/SDK/10.5/opengl/src/cascaded_shadow_maps/doc/cascaded_shadow_maps.pdf

it was very popular in games back in 2005.

SB uses only a single shadow map, a much simpler method used mostly in fighting games from 1999. better than nothing i guess.

we got specular maps, and normal maps, which blows some life into the models,

but the water looks like it came out of a game from 1998.

there's also the fact that a lot of our models are old.

we got over 100 vehicles, and myself i can hope to update only 12 models a year at most.

Roguesnake might be able to update half that many.

most of the buildings got a heavy makeover by a guy named phil, with higher resolution textures. we also had a huge influx of buildings after only having a barn and 5 houses for years.

our ground textures are very old, and ground clutter even more so.

the grass textures hasn't been updated in the past 10 years.

the trees will look bad no matter what you do with them since they don't have any lighting.

we don't have any rock models to cover our mountains with to make them look more like mountains and less like giant mounds.

so yeah, i don't think anyone is fanboying over the graphics.

but again, what we have in SB, is rock-solid gameplay, and a damn fine simulation of a bunch of modern vehicles.

and to our military customers, and personal customers thats what matters.

+ 1

A fair assessment I would say.

Deputy276 there are graphical improvements coming in the new engine

Due next year. Also I should imagine the number a size of the maps in SB compared to the MMO games makes a difference I marvel at the level of detail on some of War thunders Maps but there small and there's not a lot of them .

[MDF]

It's a shame they can't just license the Arma 3 terrain/rendering engine. I don't imagine that BIS would be very keen to engender what would be a near competitor.

[Grenny]

Well if there was a game that had the same gameplay options AND 2015's graphics, I would be over there playing it. As there isn't I have to live with the dated graphics Steelbeasts has to offer.

[Lt DeFault]

I am more than a little mystified that owners of SB Pro are so willing to accept substandard graphics, and then accept the excuse that the makers don't have public gaming as their priority. Are we all supposed to feel "elite" because countries don't care if they use outdated DOS graphics in their version, as long as they consider the program a "simulation"??:confused:

"Elite"? No. 'A tight knit community of like-minded people who enjoy sharing a common interest'? Yes.

It all depends where your priorities are. If you're primarily looking for a game with all the graphic 'bells and whistles', then maybe something like Armored Warfare or Arma is for you. If you're looking for the most realistic simulation of armored vehicle procedures, combat and tactics available, then this is the place for you. I think, for most of us anyway, the suspension of disbelief comes easier when the details and circumstances of the situation are in place, even if you're in an empty tank (with no bouncing road wheels :sonic:).

I'm sure everyone wishes SB had it all. Even the guys at eSim. But keep in mind that up until fairly recently, eSim was a relatively tiny company. A handful of dedicated people working on a program that is now over fifteen years old! And even after they expanded, they're still a relatively small company. Improvements are always being implemented, and progress is being made. But it is simply a reality that the wants of this community are in addition to the needs of several major militaries. Placing a higher priority on what amounts to a small fraction of your customer base would just be bad business.

Don't take that to mean that eSim doesn't really care about their civilian customers. If that were the case, none of us would be here. On the contrary, I have found that their customer service is top notch. And they do listen, and respond...quickly. That includes even the co-founder of the whole operation. Reported bugs are squashed, individuals' problems are addressed and even content added at the request of this community. All of this on a regular (practically monthly) basis. Can you say that about any other game/sim?

[Grenny]

"Elite"? No. 'A tight knit community of like-minded people who enjoy sharing a common interest'? Yes.

My bold.

I some cases I'm very happy, that this realy only true for matters of virtual tanking :-P

[Grenny]

... I think, for most of us anyway, the suspension of disbelief comes easier when the details and circumstances of the situation are in place, even if you're in an empty tank (with no bouncing road wheels :sonic:).

...and no real shadows and... Ok, I get the point.

I like that graphics of Arma III very much, and I would love to see steelbeasts reach a similar level.

But I still prefer the vehicle gameplay steelbeasts. The Arma III vehicles just lack any meaningful interface or fire control system(and they are "near future" anyway). Some of

modders are doing great work with adding "real" vehicles. But these a insular solutions and very often they get it wrong (heck, some are actually copying mistakes from SB ;-) )

It's just a personal feeling but:

There is one thing that killed arma(both,2 and 3) for me: the dialoges in the single player campaigns. I wear the green (on and off) since the mid nineties, but I never ever heard soldiers talk such gung-ho bullshit.(stupid, I know, but I just can't stand it)

[Lt DeFault]

I[n] some cases I'm very happy, that this realy only true for matters of virtual tanking :-P

:biggrin:

[Deputy276]

Back in the "good o' days" of computer gaming, you could get away with the graphics SB Pro has to offer. But those days are long gone. If this sim is to survive well into the 21st Century as a public offering, it is going to have to play a major game of "catchup". Things are moving at a very fast pace in the gaming world, as I'm sure everyone knows. Heck, I remember when VooDoo graphics cards and 3dfx was in it's infancy...as in Mechwarrior.

I have most of the tank sims/games/MMO that are available. I can't think of one of them that has worse graphics than SB Pro. Even the crappiest one has better graphics. Heck, if graphics didn't matter, you could just use the old "Battle Tanks" arcade game graphics of outlines of tanks they used to have in the arcades. Graphics are important not only for the "immersion factor", but if you are going to have a "realistic" sim, graphics are essential. Not just foliage that looks pretty and moves with the wind, ala PhysX, but trees, bushes, and rocks that provide cover, concealment, and cammo. Why commercial customers and governments would not want that option escapes me and escapes logic. How are they gonna train troops to properly employ armored vehicles in the field if all they have to work with is "hide behind that big rock" or "don't drive the whole tank over the hill"??? Steel Beasts must have some real super-salesman and an outrageously good marketing campaign if they are able to sell SB with the current graphics. I would think the troops themselves would be complaining about the graphics in SB, if no one else. I mean they aren't kept locked in a barracks all day. They have PCs and no doubt use other tank sims/games. That alone makes me wonder what the SB version the militaries get looks like, compared to what we have.:shocked:

I hope SP Pro does introduce a new graphics engine. It all boils down to that saying "if you want to make money, you have to spend money".

[Grenny]

There are reasons why most MoD do not put great emphasis on the latest graphics:

-cheaper hardware

-really, we have looked, there is no software around that allows for BN and above level battles and have pretty looks.

So simulation quality, outweights beauty by a big margin.

Tbh a lot of mil. Simulations(even ones introduced past 2010) have looks that are worse then SB's.

Btw: training on how to act in the terrain(cammo, concealment), are done in the real terrain. And yes: You do not drive a tank OVER a hill as long as you can avoid it IRL :-P

Edited October 27, 2015 by Grenny

[dejawolf]

Back in the "good o' days" of computer gaming, you could get away with the graphics SB Pro has to offer. But those days are long gone. If this sim is to survive well into the 21st Century as a public offering, it is going to have to play a major game of "catchup". Things are moving at a very fast pace in the gaming world, as I'm sure everyone knows. Heck, I remember when VooDoo graphics cards and 3dfx was in it's infancy...as in Mechwarrior.

I have most of the tank sims/games/MMO that are available. I can't think of one of them that has worse graphics than SB Pro. Even the crappiest one has better graphics. Heck, if graphics didn't matter, you could just use the old "Battle Tanks" arcade game graphics of outlines of tanks they used to have in the arcades. Graphics are important not only for the "immersion factor", but if you are going to have a "realistic" sim, graphics are essential. Not just foliage that looks pretty and moves with the wind, ala PhysX, but trees, bushes, and rocks that provide cover, concealment, and cammo. Why commercial customers and governments would not want that option escapes me and escapes logic. How are they gonna train troops to properly employ armored vehicles in the field if all they have to work with is "hide behind that big rock" or "don't drive the whole tank over the hill"??? Steel Beasts must have some real super-salesman and an outrageously good marketing campaign if they are able to sell SB with the current graphics. I would think the troops themselves would be complaining about the graphics in SB, if no one else. I mean they aren't kept locked in a barracks all day. They have PCs and no doubt use other tank sims/games. That alone makes me wonder what the SB version the militaries get looks like, compared to what we have.:shocked:

I hope SP Pro does introduce a new graphics engine. It all boils down to that saying "if you want to make money, you have to spend money".

well, the current graphics engine is "barely adequate" when it comes to graphics fidelity.

there's issues, but it's mostly finishing touches.

that the shade from trees doesn't conceal a tank more in forests in RL than in SB, doesn't matter too much.

now here's the real meat of the problem:

map sizes in Armored warfare: 1.5x1.5km.

map sizes in SB: let's just say we sometimes have engagements taking place at 3km, or even up to 5km with M1A2 SEP.

this makes the gameplay completely different.

whereas AW is a "shoot from the hip" egoshooter with upgradeable tanks, and highlighting

of targets, where battles last 2-10 minutes.

steel beasts is a harsh team-based extreme long range sniper battle,

where the planning phase lasts an hour, and the game itself can last up to 2 hours,

complete with the "boring(or tense) driving" that leads up to the battle.

in steel beasts, learning to use the terrain and hide well, is crucial to success, vs

having lightning reflexes.

the whole point of SB, is to estimate the position of your enemy, and get the drop on him.

and that's why the military loves SB.

it teaches you a lot better than any of the CQB tank games how to maneuver, and fight a real battle. it teaches you situational awareness.

Armored warfare teaches you what an abrams and challenger looks like.

SB also has a much broader battlefield than AW.

we got infantry, ATGMS, trucks, APCs, IFVs, artillery and helicopters.

we have a working coax on tanks, and multiple crew positions.

we got fully modeled interiors on some vehicle.

most of our vehicles are fairly accurately modeled, both with the damage model, and

with how the systems work.

[MDF]

Armored warfare teaches you what an abrams and challenger looks like.

I got a good chuckle out of this.:luxhello:

Still, I'm surprised that militaries aren't interested in higher fidelity representation of the battlefield environment. Visually, the SB battlefield is quite simplified compared to reality, meaning that your visual panorama is considerably less cluttered than the real world. That makes target acquisition easier than real life (especially in non-thermal views).

Cross-country travel is considerably easier than in real life.

Battlefield obscuration from dust, smoke, atmospheric effects is considerably less than real life.

All of these things affect the tactical experience. Of course you can experience the real thing via field exercises, but that is extremely expensive. I would think much more expensive over time than an upgrade to SB.

Not complaining. Just somewhat surprised. Maybe eSim can knock some heads together across all of their military customers and reach some agreement to share the expense.

Ehhh, what do I know, anyway?

[Gibsonm]

Heck, if graphics didn't matter, you could just use the old "Battle Tanks" arcade game graphics of outlines of tanks they used to have in the arcades.

Firstly you are of course entitled to you opinion and yes I'd like better graphics too.

However ....

80 - 85% of the Australian Army's use of Steel Beasts is in the 2D map mode.

CT OCs and BG COs (let alone BDE COMDs) spend very little time in the 3D world and we use the AI to resolve the micro tactics of this tank shooting that tank.

We use it primarily to test plans and the very small number of vehicles that drown, run into buildings, etc are statistically averaged out as "sh*t happens" (never had a guy in your unit get lost, be on the wrong frequency, etc.?).

When we do use the 3D world its for UAS overflights and to some extent crew training when/if the dedicated crew training simulators (each of which costs a massive amount of $) are not available.

BTW, the graphics inside them make SB look great!

The whole idea of constructive simulation here (and elsewhere I'm sure) is to save time, resources, etc.

So if we are doing CT training we have maybe 8 people in the room:

OC

2IC

JTAC

4 x Troop / Platoon commanders

SSM/CSM for the echelon

They look at the map and use the Mil Symbols and task graphics to do their jobs.

There are no gunners, or drivers or junior crew commanders occupying seats in the 3D world. Those other 90% of the CT are off doing something else and giving the tax payer value for money. The AI fills their role.

It is not a huge LAN party with every crew seat filled by the actual guy who does the job. SB lets us do that of course if we need to, but we usually don't.

As I say the OC and 2IC spend most of their time (90% +) looking at the map.

The JTAC spends maybe 80% looking at the map.

The Troop / Platoon commanders maybe 60% in the map.

No one spends 100% of their time in the 3D world.

Bouncy roadwheels, mud coming off tracks, track marks in the dirt, etc. are of no interest to us (but happy to have if they are part of the package).

That alone makes me wonder what the SB version the militaries get looks like, compared to what we have.:shocked:

It looks exactly the same. Yes there are some different features (e.g. Instructor mode) and some extras (e.g. bore sighting screens) but if you have played Pro PE you have played the Mil Spec one.

There is also the cost factor that Grenny alluded to.

We have maybe 1600 PCs in Sim Sites around the country.

Fitting them with Titan graphic cards or replacing the CPUs every one or two years is just too expensive.

Linked to that is the CPU "power" needed for big maps as mentioned by Dejawolf.

What sort of PC would you need to run this map in Armoured Warfare or ARMA (30km x 17km), and that isn't the biggest SB map:

Edited October 28, 2015 by Gibsonm

[Ssnake]

Back in the "good o' days" of computer gaming, you could get away with the graphics SB Pro has to offer.

Back in those days (ca. 1999/2000) we got away with much worse graphics than we currently have:

But those days are long gone.

Yes, and if you check out the first page of the "screenshot thread" which is running since 2006 you'll notice some progress.

If this sim is to survive well into the 21st Century as a public offering, it is going to have to play a major game of "catchup".

I don't know what your time horizon is. We're already past the 15% mark of "the 21st century"; "well into" might mean 2025? 2030?

If so, then we're on the same page. Steel Beasts has been around for 15 years now, and if I have it my way it'll make another 15 years. Here's the point though, even if you're looking at Steel Beasts purely from a gamer's perspective, this game already is 15 years old, and still selling. Maybe that should tell you something, that there's more to the longevity of games than fancy looks.

You won't find anyone here telling you that "the graphics are good as they are and should not be improved". If that's what you're alluding to, it's a straw man. But we have to balance a number of factors that offer different trade-offs. You may agree or disagree with the emphasis that we're putting on some factors, but undeniably these factors exist.

There's the question of map sizes. Steel Beasts maps are, well, technically not "infinitely larger" than those of other tank games, but if Dejawolf's statement is true and it's indeed limited to 2.25 km²: Some of our army customers demand more than five thousand times as much virtual estate; maybe you can imagine that there's a price to pay for such functionality. One of our customers is running Steel Beasts with about 20,000...60,000 autonomous agents per scenario (for a number of about four students in one such session). Steel Beasts can power containerized simulator cabins, or be attached to and interfaced with the real combat vehicles to turn them into their own high fidelity simulators. Other customers have used SB Pro to run it simultaneously on 160 computers in the same session, distributed over an entire continent, and some of these connected via satellite with the resulting network latencies (!).

This is the kind of functionality and use that you never get to see in the Personal Edition, but this is also the kind of functionality that decides over the commercial longevity of Steel Beasts - not the question whether other games can offer more eye candy (they can, always could, and probably always will).

Another question is how many artists and programmers we should hire to heap eye candy on eye candy (hint: you want more manpower devoted to this than our army customers, who are generating about 90...95% of our annual revenue, are willing to pay for). If we were to shift the whole team's focus on beautification we'd be falling back in functionality in other areas which arguably are more critical to our commercial success.

SB Pro PE sales make up for 5...10% of our annual turnover, PE users generate about 95% of all customer support cases, and about 20% of the development time per year is spent on things that are of relevance only for the PE players. You aren't getting a bad deal out of this. Of course we don't do this just out of generosity. The PE users give us valuable feedback about the user interface and provide a much wider range of hardware and Windows configurations. So it's in my view a matter of mutual benefit. Without armies you wouldn't get a glimpse of most of the fire control systems that Steel Beasts simulates (and with pretty good fidelity, I'd say - definitely unprecedented and unmatched in the commercial market).

Things are moving at a very fast pace in the gaming world, as I'm sure everyone knows.

I disagree. The visual improvements over five years were arguably much bigger the farther we go back in Personal Computing history:

• 1986: CGA graphics with eight garish colors, 320x200 pixels.
  PC speaker. Beeeeep. Booop. Bop-bop-braaap.
• 1991: SVGA with 16 million colors.
  8 bit soundblaster cards. Still mono, mostly.
• 1995: The first 3D accelerator, DirectX 5 (the first one that was useful enough).
  16 bit soundblaster cards, stereo. Doom however was still a DOS title, 320x240 pixel resolution, we had BNC coax network cables with terminator resistors, and Novell IPX network protocol. Four players.
• 2000: The age of useful 3D accelerator cards had finally begun. Since you were mentioning Mechwarrior on Voodoo cards: 200m visibility limit. Steel Beasts at the time offered 4000m (!!!) visible range...
  DirectX 7
• Since then:
  - 3D accelerator cards have become more powerful.
  - Screen resolutions have steadily increased
  - DirectX 8, 9, 10, 11, with ever diminishing additional gains over the previous versions
  - Surround sound.
  - Most commercial games now offer longer visibility ranges, but only with variable level of detail where combatants are usually NOT shown beyond 1.5 kilometer range, often way less. Sorry, that doesn't cut it for SB Pro's purposes. Color me unimpressed about the great pace of technological progress. Most of it is superficial

Again, don't get me wrong: Most games look fantastic, but they can do so only under a number of constraints that do not apply to Steel Beasts and the market in which we're operating - that the effective visual limit must be in the 4...8 kilometer range, all simulation must be done locally rather than on a remote server farm (as long as armies aren't willing to build and maintain their own (secure) server farms for training purposes; not even the US Army can afford that). Terrain databases that are the size of a beach towel, figuratively speaking, when hundreds of kilometers in each direction are actually requested, or towns and villages filled with thousands of autonomous agents as a backdrop for a military training exercise that wants to have tanks, artillery, IFVs, dismounted infantry, helicopters, UAVs, terrorists, caves, civilian authorities (police, civilian ambulances), marketplaces filled with life, animals, the ability to simulate natural disasters, and ideally also a way to interact with (computer-controlled) local population by gestures and, well, talking - and we DON'T HAVE that goddamn Star Trek Holodeck and the magic computer that always does what you want (no matter how vague Geordie LaForge defines the "new Sherlock Holmes" case that "can challenge Cmdr Data" as Holmes).

So, in the light of this - you don't have to like our answers, but I hope you understand why we're less enthusiastic and responsive to your suggestion to "improve the looks". It's not as if we haven't thought of it. It's that, as usual, things are a bit more complicated than throwing a wad of dollars at the problem to make it go away.

[Grenny]

And Hell: Even the old Steelbeasts of 1999 looked better then AGPG, AGPT. I mean it has trees, not "green walls of death"

[Deputy276]

What I seem to be hearing, and I could be totally off base about this so please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are trying to combine large strategic movements and operations, like the map you provided above, with much smaller tactical combat simulations. I can't imagine any simulator that can effectively do both. I sure haven't come across one yet. Closest commercial one I have found that does that, and not very well, is DCS World.

They started out with just combat flight sims and then incorporated a ground component. It's not on a map as big as you show (I don't think, but I'm not sure), but it is a pretty big map. And it includes command of pretty much all the units you mention. Plus you can command individual tanks/air defence/scouts/etc. The DCS World: Combined Arms gives you control of the ground units, both strategically and tactically, right down to being able to jump into any unit in the sim and operate it.

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/world/

My opinion, and that's all it is, is that SB Pro is trying to do too much in one sim. Yes, it has a long history of having a small core group that support it. That's all well and good. But for the sim to be a success in the gaming world today, you need more people playing it. Look on YouTube where someone named "TheDevildogGamer" has posted a ton of videos of SB Pro. In almost every post there is at least one person commenting on how outdated the graphics are. Getting those people to drop $115 for those graphics just isn't gonna fly. All you have is that same "hard core of loyalists" that is supporting you. If you want more people to invest in the sim, you are going to have to satisfy their demands, not just the military's. If all you are concerned about is military sales, and are just using the public version as a beta test bed, well, sales are going to remain as is.

SB Pro has kind of "boxed itself into a corner" with this realism thing. By making it so complex that you need special programs to set up all the commands via macros on a joystick to allow one person to operate multiple crew positions, you have pretty much taken it out of the realm of not only most casual players, but even those that are pretty serious about tank simulations.

From what I have seen of tank simulations the military uses, each person is doing one specific job through the whole simulation. Which makes sense, since a gunner is not also a driver, loader, and tank commander. In SB Pro you are trying to juggle multiple tank occupations by one person in real time. How is that realistic?

Understand, my comments are not for the purpose of tearing down SB Pro. I want it to be a big success. Not just a side note or a "by the way" item when people search for tank sims online. Early on when I bought the sim, I noticed there was no merchandise available for it. No mousepads. No t-shirts. No SB Pro patches. No car decals. I mentioned in one thread that SB Pro was missing out on not only a lot of cash income, but a way to help promote the sim. My suggestion was immediately shot down. Yet all we hear is that the big $$$ comes from commercial sales and money keeps upgrades out of reach for the public version. So why not use the merchandise sales for the development and implementation of improvements in the public version? If cost is the factor in us not getting better graphics, wouldn't it make sense to figure out a way to stimulate income to help pay for those graphics? The other games/sims offer "Premium Tanks" for sale as individual items. Some are as much as $50 each. I wouldn't mind dropping $50 for a playable M60A3. Heck, I spent a lot more than that in WOT.

[dejawolf]

What I seem to be hearing, and I could be totally off base about this so please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are trying to combine large strategic movements and operations, like the map you provided above, with much smaller tactical combat simulations. I can't imagine any simulator that can effectively do both. I sure haven't come across one yet. Closest commercial one I have found that does that, and not very well, is DCS World.

They started out with just combat flight sims and then incorporated a ground component. It's not on a map as big as you show (I don't think, but I'm not sure), but it is a pretty big map. And it includes command of pretty much all the units you mention. Plus you can command individual tanks/air defence/scouts/etc. The DCS World: Combined Arms gives you control of the ground units, both strategically and tactically, right down to being able to jump into any unit in the sim and operate it.

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/world/

My opinion, and that's all it is, is that SB Pro is trying to do too much in one sim. Yes, it has a long history of having a small core group that support it. That's all well and good. But for the sim to be a success in the gaming world today, you need more people playing it. Look on YouTube where someone named "TheDevildogGamer" has posted a ton of videos of SB Pro. In almost every post there is at least one person commenting on how outdated the graphics are. Getting those people to drop $115 for those graphics just isn't gonna fly. All you have is that same "hard core of loyalists" that is supporting you. If you want more people to invest in the sim, you are going to have to satisfy their demands, not just the military's. If all you are concerned about is military sales, and are just using the public version as a beta test bed, well, sales are going to remain as is.

SB Pro has kind of "boxed itself into a corner" with this realism thing. By making it so complex that you need special programs to set up all the commands via macros on a joystick to allow one person to operate multiple crew positions, you have pretty much taken it out of the realm of not only most casual players, but even those that are pretty serious about tank simulations.

From what I have seen of tank simulations the military uses, each person is doing one specific job through the whole simulation. Which makes sense, since a gunner is not also a driver, loader, and tank commander. In SB Pro you are trying to juggle multiple tank occupations by one person in real time. How is that realistic?

Understand, my comments are not for the purpose of tearing down SB Pro. I want it to be a big success. Not just a side note or a "by the way" item when people search for tank sims online. Early on when I bought the sim, I noticed there was no merchandise available for it. No mousepads. No t-shirts. No SB Pro patches. No car decals. I mentioned in one thread that SB Pro was missing out on not only a lot of cash income, but a way to help promote the sim. My suggestion was immediately shot down. Yet all we hear is that the big $$$ comes from commercial sales and money keeps upgrades out of reach for the public version. So why not use the merchandise sales for the development and implementation of improvements in the public version? If cost is the factor in us not getting better graphics, wouldn't it make sense to figure out a way to stimulate income to help pay for those graphics? The other games/sims offer "Premium Tanks" for sale as individual items. Some are as much as $50 each. I wouldn't mind dropping $50 for a playable M60A3. Heck, I spent a lot more than that in WOT.

it depends on who is playing. as Nils said, Military customers are already using SB for large semi-strategic maneuvers, and it works for them.

for PE, SB is strictly tactical. no boxing in enemy forces and starving them of resources.

and as for the realism portion, that's what we like. skimping on realism is a no-go.

SB is for the 10%, not the 90%.

besides we got the AI crewmembers to take over for the jobs when you're not in your seat.

here you can see one of the army customers using SB.

the T-72M1, M1A1 abrams, M1A2 abrams, are all vehicles that were done for our PE customers. these were not requested by any militaries. as for the next update, there'll be some non-military requested goodies for PE customers that i'm sure a lot of people are going to be happy about.

[Lt DeFault]

Deputy276,

I think you're reading past a lot of what has been written here. The bottom line is that SB was designed as a tactical trainer specifically for military customers. Everything else, from past graphics updates to the very existence of the PE edition, is just a bonus. (A very nice bonus.) Sure, as Nils has pointed out, eSim does benefit from it. But is it necessary? No. As Mark has said, eSim's primary customers really couldn't care less about the latest graphics. In fact, it could even be considered a hindrance for them in terms of the processing power required to render them. And as Nils also stated, they're currently devoting 20% of their development time for what amounts to 5% of their customer base.

You're argument is based on the supposition that eSim desires to sell a significantly higher volume of the PE edition. While I'm sure they wouldn't mind if that happened, I just don't hear them saying that's anywhere near the top of their list of priorities.

I think everyone here understands that you simply want SB to be more successful in the civilian sim market, and you're not alone in that. But as Nils also stated, the problem is not really one of funding, but of development time, the complications of dealing with legacy issues that come with program code that has been used for 15 years now, and other associated logistical challenges. As for "premium content", that has been addressed elsewhere, but I'll sum it up by saying it would cause a nightmare in terms of compatibility when it comes to multiplayer sessions.

And I must address your assertion that one needs "special programs to set up all the commands via macros on a joystick to allow one person to operate multiple crew positions". I do have a joystick which is programmed to do a lot of stuff that would normally be done on the keyboard. You know how much of it I actually use? None. I use the default joystick mappings for slewing/elevating the turret/gun and view, firing and switching magnification of the sight. The rest I do with the keyboard and mouse...all default mapping. And I can operate practically any vehicle or weapons system in the sim. (Granted, I've been playing SB for the better part of a decade now.)

Not only that, I think you'll find that it's not even necessary to try and fill every crew position in a vehicle by yourself. Or any for that matter. That's what the AI is for. Or, if you're playing online, you can have three people operating one tank. Just like in real life. (Minus the loader, of course.)

Look, Steel Beasts is currently being used by as many as ten actual militaries around the world to train crews and commanders in the tactical deployment of armored vehicles. If that's not a measure of the success of a tank sim, then I don't know what is. My suggestion to you is to sit back, relax, let eSim worry about their business model and enjoy the fact that you have access to virtually the exact same software that those militaries are using. And you can even play with current and ex real-life tankers online and learn a lot about real-life tanking. That's what drew me here, and what has kept it enjoyable all this time.

Cheers,

Sean P.

[Gibsonm]

What I seem to be hearing, and I could be totally off base about this so please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are trying to combine large strategic movements and operations, like the map you provided above, with much smaller tactical combat simulations.

Well this is for a 24hour delay task by a BattleGroup.

That's neither Strategic nor Operational in scope.

Of course you can go back and forth over the same ground if you want.

But modern weapons systems demand manoeuvre space. Anyone trying to move on a 2km x 2km map when someone has Hellfire, or even a tank gun, is doomed.

I can't imagine any simulator that can effectively do both. I sure haven't come across one yet.

Well you can, just reduce the AI participation.

Want to run a CT, then have the 8 people or so that I mentioned earlier.

Want to run a Troop just fill every slot with a person and use a corresponding smaller piece of dirt.

If you want to play 1:1 Infantry and duck behind walls, jump over outdoor furniture, etc. then absolutely you need to head off to VBS3 or ARMA.

And it includes command of pretty much all the units you mention. Plus you can command individual tanks/air defence/scouts/etc. The DCS World: Combined Arms gives you control of the ground units, both strategically and tactically, right down to being able to jump into any unit in the sim and operate it.

Well SB lets you do this too but we don't use it. We use the chain of command and let the AI control subordinate units.

When was the last time that the company commander climbed into your tank and said "I'll take this shot"

But for the sim to be a success in the gaming world today, you need more people playing it.

Well perhaps that is the core of the issue - maybe they don't.

Maybe they want to just offer a civilian version of the military product to a "discerning" customer and not chase the mass market?

I don't know by the way.

From what I have seen of tank simulations the military uses, each person is doing one specific job through the whole simulation. Which makes sense, since a gunner is not also a driver, loader, and tank commander. In SB Pro you are trying to juggle multiple tank occupations by one person in real time. How is that realistic?

Not necessarily.

If you want to be a solo company commander give orders (routes, waypoints, tactics, etc.) and leave the execution to the AI.

No need to "juggle multiple tank occupations".

If you want 1:1 just either get more players or reduce the number of vehicles used to match the number of attendees.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Gibsonm
Clarified last sentence.

[Grenny]

...From what I have seen of tank simulations the military uses, each person is doing one specific job through the whole simulation. Which makes sense, since a gunner is not also a driver, loader, and tank commander. ...

...

Which would be utterly dull in my p.o.v. If you spent the whole time of an 2 hour virtual battle as the gunner, you would get the same experience as a gunner IRL: hours of whatching a trees, bushes, plain ground...and then MAYBE 1 or 2 targets. And then its over.

I don't think that this gameplay idea is going to fly either :-)

[CharlieB]

Well put Gibsonm!!!

[MDF]

What I seem to be hearing, and I could be totally off base about this so please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are trying to combine large strategic movements and operations, like the map you provided above, with much smaller tactical combat simulations. I can't imagine any simulator that can effectively do both. I sure haven't come across one yet. Closest commercial one I have found that does that, and not very well, is DCS World.

They started out with just combat flight sims and then incorporated a ground component. It's not on a map as big as you show (I don't think, but I'm not sure), but it is a pretty big map. And it includes command of pretty much all the units you mention. Plus you can command individual tanks/air defence/scouts/etc. The DCS World: Combined Arms gives you control of the ground units, both strategically and tactically, right down to being able to jump into any unit in the sim and operate it.

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/world/

My opinion, and that's all it is, is that SB Pro is trying to do too much in one sim. Yes, it has a long history of having a small core group that support it. That's all well and good. But for the sim to be a success in the gaming world today, you need more people playing it. Look on YouTube where someone named "TheDevildogGamer" has posted a ton of videos of SB Pro. In almost every post there is at least one person commenting on how outdated the graphics are. Getting those people to drop $115 for those graphics just isn't gonna fly. All you have is that same "hard core of loyalists" that is supporting you. If you want more people to invest in the sim, you are going to have to satisfy their demands, not just the military's. If all you are concerned about is military sales, and are just using the public version as a beta test bed, well, sales are going to remain as is.

SB Pro has kind of "boxed itself into a corner" with this realism thing. By making it so complex that you need special programs to set up all the commands via macros on a joystick to allow one person to operate multiple crew positions, you have pretty much taken it out of the realm of not only most casual players, but even those that are pretty serious about tank simulations.

From what I have seen of tank simulations the military uses, each person is doing one specific job through the whole simulation. Which makes sense, since a gunner is not also a driver, loader, and tank commander. In SB Pro you are trying to juggle multiple tank occupations by one person in real time. How is that realistic?

Understand, my comments are not for the purpose of tearing down SB Pro. I want it to be a big success. Not just a side note or a "by the way" item when people search for tank sims online. Early on when I bought the sim, I noticed there was no merchandise available for it. No mousepads. No t-shirts. No SB Pro patches. No car decals. I mentioned in one thread that SB Pro was missing out on not only a lot of cash income, but a way to help promote the sim. My suggestion was immediately shot down. Yet all we hear is that the big $$$ comes from commercial sales and money keeps upgrades out of reach for the public version. So why not use the merchandise sales for the development and implementation of improvements in the public version? If cost is the factor in us not getting better graphics, wouldn't it make sense to figure out a way to stimulate income to help pay for those graphics? The other games/sims offer "Premium Tanks" for sale as individual items. Some are as much as $50 each. I wouldn't mind dropping $50 for a playable M60A3. Heck, I spent a lot more than that in WOT.

You still appear to overlook the fundamental nature of this product. If, as Ssnake pointed out, 90-95% of eSim revenue comes from military customers, then no matter how lackluster sales of the consumer version are, it is not going to affect the direction of the product.

I'm surprised to hear that the defense customers are using SB as a constructive simulation. I would have thought that JCATS/OneSAF-type sims would be the tool of choice. But if they are using SB to drive missions with thousands of autonomous agents, then it becomes clear that a fancier rendering engine might actually be counterproductive.

And even if the issue is merely that defense customers are not interested in paying for prettier graphics, then consumer sales will have to pay for the enormous costs of a visual makeover. I imagine that current sales levels would not suffice. Maybe if eSim ate the upfront costs to improve the sim's look, there will be a huge influx of new customers to make the expenditure profitable in the end. But I doubt that would be the case.

We all want a better-looking sim, but the unfortunate reality is that SB is likely to lag well behind the state of the art perpetually.

[12Alfa]

From what I have seen of tank simulations the military uses, each person is doing one specific job through the whole simulation.

Yes this is very true to a point. There are CREW trainers while they are the vast majority, then simulations for leadership, I have used both, and they are designed with different teaching in mind.

All you have is that same "hard core of loyalists" that is supporting you

Not quite.

Well the support is as noted from the military, we are just free-loaders.

The other games/sims offer "Premium Tanks" for sale as individual items

I am unaware of "other sims" offering Premium Tanks" for sale as individual items, could you provide a link?

Games sure, but tank sims, I know of only 1 tank simulation open to the public.

[Marko]

You still appear to overlook the fundamental nature of this product. If, as Ssnake pointed out, 90-95% of eSim revenue comes from military customers, then no matter how lackluster sales of the consumer version are, it is not going to affect the direction of the product.

I'm surprised to hear that the defense customers are using SB as a constructive simulation. I would have thought that JCATS/OneSAF-type sims would be the tool of choice. But if they are using SB to drive missions with thousands of autonomous agents, then it becomes clear that a fancier rendering engine might actually be counterproductive.

And even if the issue is merely that defense customers are not interested in paying for prettier graphics, then consumer sales will have to pay for the enormous costs of a visual makeover. I imagine that current sales levels would not suffice. Maybe if eSim ate the upfront costs to improve the sim's look, there will be a huge influx of new customers to make the expenditure profitable in the end. But I doubt that would be the case.

We all want a better-looking sim, but the unfortunate reality is that SB is likely to lag well behind the state of the art perpetually.

Although I have come to the same conclusion.

Better graphics would lead to more new customers for the PE version.

But they would have to sell thousands of copy's to cover the time and cost.

And unfortunately Tank warfare is a real niche market.

But IMO, I really don't think the graphics are that bad

Compared to other high fidelity sims like DCS,

you cant compare it with the likes of Arma 3 different market huge revenues involved

I have a fairly decent machine and dedicated graphics card and I still can not run SB on all full detail settings with out noticeable slow down.

I should imagine at some stage the old engine will have to be sent to the scrap yard and a new one build, that's capable of many of the things we would like to see I personally would like to see a terrain like spin types use, mud mud and more mud better CAS

scenario generator and lots more, but the reality is were not going to get additions like that for a long time if ever. Esim are committed to improving the sim and have done so right from the start its a long and arduous venture.

One more thing Deputy276, Ssanke is notorious for playing his card close to his chest when it comes to new additions and features for upcoming updates.

Don't be surprised if there are some really exciting additions in the next update.

[Grenny]

There have been some interesting ideas mentioned.

A "more commercial" spinoff of steelbeast even was in the minds of esim at a time.

Right now Ssnake seems to have a viable business model to keep him and the crew employed.

Taking in at least double the crew to create a -state-of-the-art-graphics-combined-arms- sim+ tactical-shooter- would need a huge investment over a prolonged time.

There are considerable risks involved: Will it be doable at all? Will there be a big enough market to achieve a good RoI?

Well I would buy it...so yes go ahead. Then again my livelyhood does not depend on that decision Ssnake's does. So he is more qualified to judge :-P

There is however a thing to consider too: as procurement agencies look also a finacial risks concerning their contract partners (least thing you want is your contractor go bust in the middle of a project=> been there, done that, got the T-shirt...and I can tell its a huge PITA)

So esim taking a big loan with a very uncertain RoI, will definetifely have a very negtive impact on getting government contracts.