Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[Gibsonm]

This maybe unmanageable, but the ability to script individual vehicles from a Troop to detach from the group, move and do a task and then return and rejoin.

 

Currently you can make the global decision to detach a unit and then script it throughout, but that's a permanent decision for the duration of the scenario.

 

Such a decision results in, worst case, 4 sets of routes, waypoints, etc. as the 4x (or as many as relevant) individual vehicles attempt to move as a Troop.

 

Ideally I'd like to retain the Troop composition, move it as a Troop and then detach a section or vehicle for a task and re-attach as required, a bit like the ability to dismount a Infantry team (as they are all individually listed).

 

This might be a simple as a "detach if ..." and "attach if .." set of options, given the length of a list where every vehicle or fire team is listed (subject to the filter idea listed previously).

 

The current "no less than Troop" limitation, means that you need to use too many vehicles (a block of 4) in places such as below, which is difficult to script and results in a poor allocation of force.

 

[iamfritz]

Will we ever see CROWS on M1A2s or HMMWVs?

[Ssnake]

Time permitting, yes. Their addition isn't entirely trivial, as for each vehicle the no-fire zone profiles need to be defined.

[iamfritz]

How about the ability to scroll around maps, select units, plot routes, etc. thru the F1 view in the tracks that have IVIS or similar? I mean, without going into F5 view?

 

And by the way I freaking love this sim. Thanks for working so hard on it, making it public, and developing it as time has gone by. It'll never be replaced.

 

Hello? Is this thing on?

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by iamfritz

[iamfritz]

13 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Time permitting, yes. Their addition isn't entirely trivial, as for each vehicle the no-fire zone profiles need to be defined.

Cool. Thanks!

[Gibsonm]

This is purely cosmetic and therefore in no way a priority.

 

APC / IFV move to their passengers to re-mount them and this a great feature / enhancement.

 

Sometimes though the vehicles reverse to their passengers with their ramps down, which isn't ideal.

 

The juice may not be worth the squeeze on this, but ideally they would raise their ramps, move to the passengers and then lower the ramp again.

[Parachuteprone]

Also cosmetic. Be nice to be able to paint or fill an area with debris/wood/bricks/ metal etc. in the map editor.

Similar to what we can do with bushes/ rocks etc.

The battlefields, especially around city's and roads especially look much too clean.

Edited December 26, 2022 by Parachuteprone

[Gibsonm]

15 minutes ago, Parachuteprone said:

Also cosmetic. Be nice to be able to paint or fill an area with debris/wood/bricks/ metal etc. in the map editor.

Similar to what we can do with bushes/ rocks etc.

The battlefields, especially around city's and roads especially look much too clean.

 

That might mess with the navmesh.

 

Scripting vehicles to go exactly where you want in the current urban environment with hedges, stone walls, traffic railings, etc. is already problematic.

[Ssnake]

a. I agree, that our environment is too sterile

b. I agree, we need better AI/navigation before this would be possible

c. it's something for SB Pro V5/V5+

[Parachuteprone]

6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

a. I agree, that our environment is too sterile

b. I agree, we need better AI/navigation before this would be possible

c. it's something for SB Pro V5/V5+

Well, I was thinking  of much smaller debris. Like rock size (but bricks/pieces of wood etc.) or even smaller that we could "paint" on a map.

We can drive through bushes and over rocks.

Something too small to affect movement, just clutter. A debris map object square that we can paint with.

 

That said nothing happens until v5 anyways so maybe you have something else in mind.

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Parachuteprone

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, Parachuteprone said:

That said nothing happens until v5 anyways so maybe you have something else in mind.

I may be referring to V5 a lot because that's where I want our priority to be; that doesn't mean that work on V4 has been suspended, or will be suspended soon.

[Parachuteprone]

Nice

 

[Gibsonm]

4 hours ago, Parachuteprone said:

Well, I was thinking  of much smaller debris. Like rock size (but bricks/pieces of wood etc.) or even smaller that we could "paint" on a map.

We can drive through bushes and over rocks.

Something too small to affect movement, just clutter. A debris map object square that we can paint with.

 

 

Ah.

 

When you said "debris", I went to collapsed walls that could provide cover for Infantry and improvised fighting positions for vehicles, etc.

[Parachuteprone]

5 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Ah.

 

When you said "debris", I went to collapsed walls that could provide cover for Infantry and improvised fighting positions for vehicles, etc.

 

Well, I'd love that too but that's a huge amount of work I suspect 

Just being able to "dirty up" the roadsides and streets mostly.

 

[Parachuteprone]

Something like this, maybe not quite as heavy though and without damaged structures and bridges etc.

 

[Parachuteprone]

Even a muddy paint we could use to dirty the edges of a road to make it look more like this

 

[Gibsonm]

1 minute ago, Parachuteprone said:

Something like this, maybe not quite as heavy though and without damaged structures and bridges etc.

 

 

Well I think car wrecks are over the threshold - but I'm only guessing.

 

I think with the right sized IED you might be able to drop a bridge already (too large an IED and the span is vaporised though)

[Parachuteprone]

Ya, without the car wrecks and dropped bridges . I couldn't  find a good image without a vehicle in it.

 

I saw a real good image somewhere of a tank moving through a village with little pieces of wood and brick scattered on and along the road but I can't find it now.

 

 

[Gibsonm]

6 minutes ago, Parachuteprone said:

Even a muddy paint we could use to dirty the edges of a road to make it look more like this

 

 

This is where it gets tricky though.

 

Even small amount of "mud" or even boggy terrain like those marked in red below makes 4WD and even tracked AFV movement very limited.

 

 

In fact in this example vehicles even drop down when trying to cross the road verge (grey area with small rocks).

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Gibsonm

[Parachuteprone]

Right, although that would force you to try to stay on the roads which would be somewhat accurate.

Would be interesting to try.

 

Or it could just be used as a visual effect and have no effect on movement like a bush.

 

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Parachuteprone

[Parachuteprone]

Easiest of all would be to add a couple/few more road types.

So instead of just gravel road, dirt road etc. option.

add

 

Muddy/rutted dirt road

and debris littered road

Make these a bit wider to get the effect in the pictures.

 

Only problem here is it's just useful for making new maps.

An object paint would allow us to take an existing map and dirty it up.

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Parachuteprone

[Bond_Villian]

On 12/27/2022 at 10:50 AM, Gibsonm said:

 

This is where it gets tricky though.

 

Even small amount of "mud" or even boggy terrain like those marked in red below makes 4WD and even tracked AFV movement very limited.

 

 

In fact in this example vehicles even drop down when trying to cross the road verge (grey area with small rocks).

 

Terrain drag etc is only as prohibitive as you make it in the editor

[Bond_Villian]

On 12/27/2022 at 10:43 AM, Parachuteprone said:

Even a muddy paint we could use to dirty the edges of a road to make it look more like this

 

I haven't been in the map editor recently, but as i recall,  there is an option to have roads above or below the adjacent terrain (ie; snow covered roads). You could experiment with this and see what you get.

I did this on my Bastogne map to simulate snow drifts on some roads (with movement speed 'penalties' on the snow terrain brush used) to good effect

[CalAB]

As much as I love this sim and enjoy its subtle nuances and “what’s under the hood” strengths it grows old with the passing of time. 
 

How much more can be done with Direct X version 8. 
 

Even with Steel Beasts being elevated into the current sphere of triple A titles of games, at what point should the line be drawn. 
 

When do the military branches say we need no more of this because the other things can only be demonstrated in the real world. 
 

Students learn in a classroom what works most of the time if all things are of equal value. What can’t be simulated by any software is what’s most important and most essential and expensive. 
 

My eyes would love to see a fully visualized virtual environment that’s at the closest possible level it can be next to the real world but with combat software what’s the point. 
 

Patiently I wait for a next unveiling of a better this or better that with eSim but the line is there and sooner or later you come to it. 

[Ssnake]

a. We clearly have reached the limits of DirectX 9.

Besides, Microsoft have basically announced that at some point they will switch off support for older DirectX versions in a future Windows; the work on a new render engine has already started a while ago.

 

b. I don't expect us to run out of ideas what else we could do with Steel Beasts as a training tool. Also, it's not one single army that dictates the limit of our development work. We have about a dozen military customers - and they don't dictate limits but rather encourage work by funding it (at least partially), when it's a direct requirement of theirs. They also expect us to keep exploring new ideas/areas of application.

 

Yes, it's true: Steel Beasts is being created under the conditions of commercial software development. We will continue to draw lines beyond which we will do no more because we have reached points of diminishing returns, but those lines keep being redefined since they exist in relation to the overall market situation and customer expectations rather than being objectively defined and immutable.