SB Pro PE 2.5x - News

[Raven434th]

This is confusing...SimHQ's News Expose implies that this is the "first" British addition to the game.I interpet it as a new playable tank ,since we already have british playable IFV units.So whats the deal??Do we pay 30 buks to look at it ,then another 30 to play in it down the road??

[GH_Lieste]

It is the first British land vehicle.

Within the armoured vehicle arena the UK MOD primarily uses the FV432, Warrior, CVR-T and Challenger & varients, none of which are currently in the engine.

While the M113, Pizarro, CV90 and Leopard 2 have 'stood in' for these in the past within scenarios there haven't been any UK vehicles so far.

I'm expecting to see the Challenger be only as AI for now.

[Raven434th]

Ah...theres my mistake...I had always thought the Cv90 WAS a British IFV.Actually I thought the Cv90 was a Warrior,to be honest.whats the difference?

ah ha,just googled it,now I see theres a big difference in their designs.MCV80vsCV90 thats where I got confused.

[GH_Lieste]

CV90 may be the future basis for one of the FRES family - the Warrior & CVR-T replacements (although I must admit to having lost the plot with that procurement tale! Someone is bound to chime in though.)

The CV90 is produced by the Swedish, and used (in various forms) by Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands - and probably some others I've forgotten.

It originally had the Bofors 40mm L70, but has been re-gunned in many of the more recent vehicles with the more modern 35mm and 30mm autocannon.

Warrior is only used by the UK (and in a variant form by Kuwait IIRC?) - it was equipped with a far less potent 30mm Rarden Cannon - less powerful than the 40mm Bofors or the CV90 35mm or 30mm alternative fits (mostly due to weaker ammunition). Against the more recent IFV it is considered ineffective, and some effort has been made to enhance lethality - again I'm not sure what the current state of the WLIP is...

[Raven434th]

He he ,kinda funny but if a CV90 and a Bradley got together and had a baby,and then dropped it on its head,........it would look like a Warrior.:biggrin:

[digital_steve]

I still haven't played much of this Sim (will be delving into it in depth now that i've given Falcon the flick) but i find it hard to believe that the troop models haven't been addressed previously and aren't being addressed now.

They are, without a doubt, completely hideous.

From an immersion point of view it's a breaker too, as you can't help but laugh when you see them... it also sucks when you're showing off the sim and people are loving it until the sprites show up.

[Raven434th]

Yep...gotta agree on this one,happened to me too.And yeah,they laughed.Harder when they asked how much it was.

[Ssnake]

Well, 3D characters will come, if that's of any consolation. I agree that it took us bloody long, but you all should know by now that visual splendor has never been on top of our priority list. Mind you, I like pretty screenshots like any other guy, but I accept that I can't have everything, and if in doubt I will rather go for better fidelity in the simulation of tactical battle outcomes and more faithful representation of what certain vehicles can and what they can't. In short, my priority is on getting the tactical element to the point where it truly is a combined arms simulation before shifting the attention to visuals, or getting "more of the same" (admittedly the M113A1 is an example of a vehicle variant that doesn't introduce anything new from a tactical perspective - as they say, exceptions just confirm the norm).

[digital_steve]

I'll trade graphics for immersion any day... sprites aren't immersive

Edited July 13, 2010 by digital_steve
typo... fat fingers

[sabot_ready]

This is confusing...SimHQ's News Expose implies that this is the "first" British addition to the game.I interpet it as a new playable tank ,since we already have british playable IFV units.So whats the deal??Do we pay 30 buks to look at it ,then another 30 to play in it down the road??

Treat it like the other non-crewable AI units that the game already has .....T72/80 , Marder...on and on.

We are already paying to have those and are we going to be upset when they finally become playable .Every step forward is more than we had before and that is what we pay for.

At least E-Sim is meeting us half way ....Hell even I have suggested in the past,that if we couldn't have a playable M1A2 that at least we might get it as a non-crewable . Looks like they are open to this route and that is good news.

[sabot_ready]

M113A1 is an example of a vehicle variant that doesn't introduce anything new from a tactical perspective .

But do we get to call it a Gavin yet?

Whats this make..11 variants now ?12 if you include the arty placeholder.

[oscar19681]

Treat it like the other non-crewable AI units that the game already has .....T72/80 , Marder...on and on.

We are already paying to have those and are we going to be upset when they finally become playable .Every step forward is more than we had before and that is what we pay for.

At least E-Sim is meeting us half way ....Hell even I have suggested in the past,that if we couldn't have a playable M1A2 that at least we might get it as a non-crewable . Looks like they are open to this route and that is good news.

But then again they could have given us a playable m1a2 as well. Anyway i like that the chally is added but dont expect the chally to be playable in any time soon. If its ever gonna be playable at all.

[Raven434th]

He He,I got an idea...go ask BIS for a soldier model in return for some ballistics data for their tanks...hehe.Good deal,We all win then:biggrin:

[Raven434th]

Well, 3D characters will come, if that's of any consolation. I agree that it took us bloody long, but you all should know by now that visual splendor has never been on top of our priority list. Mind you, I like pretty screenshots like any other guy, but I accept that I can't have everything, and if in doubt I will rather go for better fidelity in the simulation of tactical battle outcomes and more faithful representation of what certain vehicles can and what they can't. In short, my priority is on getting the tactical element to the point where it truly is a combined arms simulation before shifting the attention to visuals, or getting "more of the same" (admittedly the M113A1 is an example of a vehicle variant that doesn't introduce anything new from a tactical perspective - as they say, exceptions just confirm the norm).

MMMMMMmmmm...sorta see your point...kinda,but in reality ,its the emersion that dictates its fidelity as well...no?They should never be expressed as separate,they go hand in hand IMO.If that wasn't the case,why do steelbeasts 2 and not simply develope steelbeasts 1 further??

[sabot_ready]

If that wasn't the case,why do steelbeasts 2 and not simply develope steelbeasts 1 further??

Because SB1 was really a golf ball trajectory Sim in which Arnold Palmer came dressed up as a M1 and Jack Nicklaus as a Leo 2A4.

SB ProPE was meant to be Armored Tactic Sim from the ground up.

[Tacbat]

Sabot, you've done what I thought was unpossible. You made tanks sound ghey.

All we need is a few plad skins...

[Kilo60]

I know asking for shadows is probably a stretch at this point but it would add a lot to this sim the least of which would involve the MBT's/AFV's not appearing to "Hover" over the landscape.

What about main gun recoiling animations? Heck even the arcadey "C.O.D." series has had this down for some time. Could this be added at some point without too much trouble?

Lastly I would love too see the commanders/gunners visible outside of hatches (I believe I saw this in a screenshot somewhere?) and jeeps/trucks with visible drivers instead of the ghost driven vehicles we see now.

[Retro]

Heck even the arcadey "C.O.D." series has had this down for some time.

The arcadey COD series also has a budget of 40 million $ to spend on such irrelevant (to the simulation) effects..

[Stratos]

I don't know If "No-News" is better than Bad-news, but I start to thing that AGAIN the crewable T-72 will not be included in this update. Hope Nils prove me wrong.

[Ssnake]

But do we get to call it a Gavin yet?

Now, don't be a naughty boy!

[Ssnake]

...but in reality ,its the emersion that dictates its fidelity as well...no?

Actually, no.

A simulation can be extremely accurate and detailed but would just kick out long lists of computational results. Think of climate models, weather simulations. They don't render a tornado, or how the rain will look like, so they probably are the least immersive simulations possible, but their fidelity can be very high.

Okay, SB Pro isn't a weather simulation. It's a training tool for tank crews and for tactical instruction. Here immersion usually is a good thing, and that's why we are INDEED making the transition to 3D characters - but high immersion does not necessarily equate to a high training value. Immersion is no substitute for content. And to that extent the development of SB Pro is content-driven and not focused on immersion.

With a game, that's different. Some games - most, actually - are better if the player feels immersed. That's why most game developers put an emphasis on good graphics (aside from the fact that it also contributes to the marketing effort for a game title, and that it is much easier to crank out great looks than to develop great content. Good looks can essentially be solved by throwing more money at it - you just hire a couple more 3D artists and let them do their thing).

Realism can be divided into three categories for a virtual simulation. You would probably want realistic graphics, but you also want realistic procedures, and realistic results. Compare the latest shooters with SB Pro. They get the visuals right - much better than we do, and probably better than we can ever hope to do - but procedures and results? Certainly not.

The switch to the new engine, by the way, was content driven. With SB1 we were limited to 100m height variance per each map, and also the purely software based engine wasn't suitable for higher resolutions. Finally, all the development tools that you get these days are optimized to polygonic engines, so it was a matter of our own productivity and of content. Besides, like I wrote countless times before, I am not against good looks. I will happily accept them whenever there is an opportunity to improve them. It just isn't at the top of the priority list.

[Ssnake]

I start to thing that AGAIN the crewable T-72 will not be included in this update. Hope Nils prove me wrong.

If we had a playable T-72, I would have opened the show with it.

[oscar19681]

If we had a playable T-72, I would have opened the show with it.

well since you opened the show with an unplayable challanger 2 then i really start to wonder whats so revolutionairy about this upgrade.

[Stratos]

I better forget about this T72 story, from the beginning it was a marketting strategy that worked very well in my case. Very sad.

[Crusty]

I'm happy to see the earlier Gavin, oops sorry I mean M113 (wash my mouth out) in the forthcoming upgrade.

I'm currently updating(very slowly) Stuart Galbraith's Team Yankee scenarios, so this will be a very welcome addition from my point of view :biggrin: