screenshots 3.0

[Stevo]

check here> http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/sbgallery/main.php?g2_itemId=17327

[skipp]

Looking very good, with those soft shadows, cant wait until July

[Andrimner]

Looking great! But I can't help but wonder - why would one place a spare road wheel almost directly in front of the TC's sight?

[Volcano]

Looking great! But I can't help but wonder - why would one place a spare road wheel almost directly in front of the TC's sight?

It was based on a photo of some unit's load plan in Iraq. It doesn't obstruct the FOV unless you look straight down at the turret roof, and even so, only partially. The gunner's dog house and the gun tube obstructs the CITV worse than that.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Volcano

[oscar19681]

Looking very good , i dont know if Its The schadows but it looks like They did something with The grafics in general to . M1A2 is very Nice and i love the interieur shots . But i,m hoping for something radical in the update .

[Ssnake]

Radical as in "will have civilians in it (up to 12 parties in a scenario)", "new render engine", "50 new weapon systems", "25 new playable units", "improved path finding", "autonomous navigation for car and pedestrian traffic", "dynamic weather conditions"?

Or is that not radical enough?

[oscar19681]

Radical as in "will have civilians in it (up to 12 parties in a scenario)", "new render engine", "50 new weapon systems", "25 new playable units", "improved path finding", "autonomous navigation for car and pedestrian traffic", "dynamic weather conditions"?

Or is that not radical enough?

I didnt say that , those Sure are soms exellent features. But personally some other features would trully make SbP grondbreaking for me.

[hoggydog]

It was based on a photo of some unit's load plan in Iraq. It doesn't obstruct the FOV unless you look straight down at the turret roof, and even so, only partially. The gunner's dog house and the gun tube obstructs the CITV worse than that.

It possibly gives the sight some hard cover as well against small arms fire etc.

[Gibsonm]

Radical as in "will have civilians in it (up to 12 parties in a scenario)", "new render engine", "50 new weapon systems", "25 new playable units", "improved path finding", "autonomous navigation for car and pedestrian traffic", "dynamic weather conditions"?

Or is that not radical enough?

No bouncing roadwheels I think is the issue.

[Stevo]

i think the new features look very promising,the most important to me is that the game is playeble,like it having decent roads and online connectivity for exemple.

And iam also sure that this will not be the last update so rest assured.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Stevo

[OldRavenNL]

hmm, I was somewhat shocked.

Maybe my expectations where too high.. but when I hear "new engine" I at least expect that also the models would be upgraded to 2013 standards by making the models higher res, higher detail.

I see the same model, same texture.

What's wrong with the bloom effect? Can you dial that down in options?

Where's the grass? And the ground textures are the same?

Maybe I'm playing devil's advocate here.. but I'm not really impressed what I'm seeing here. yet?

[oscar19681]

hmm, I was somewhat shocked.

Maybe my expectations where too high.. but when I hear "new engine" I at least expect that also the models would be upgraded to 2013 standards by making the models higher res, higher detail.

I see the same model, same texture.

What's wrong with the bloom effect? Can you dial that down in options?

Where's the grass? And the ground textures are the same?

Maybe I'm playing devil's advocate here.. but I'm not really impressed what I'm seeing here. yet?

Im Sure we are still left in The dark about The best features . But i was Sure not to have to high expectations about the new engine . I suspect that the limitations of The current engine just dont allow for Much more inovation by now. And if it does it would take loads of manhours to make any real significant changes.

[Andrimner]

It was based on a photo of some unit's load plan in Iraq. It doesn't obstruct the FOV unless you look straight down at the turret roof, and even so, only partially. The gunner's dog house and the gun tube obstructs the CITV worse than that.

Oh, it wasn't meant to question the accuracy of the model as compared to real life, I only wondered why tankers would place it there. As long as it doesn't obscure the FOV, all is good! Although it's almost hard to believe that it doesn't affect it in reverse slope battle positions....looking forward to trying it out!

[Stevo]

hmm, I was somewhat shocked.

Maybe my expectations where too high.. but when I hear "new engine" I at least expect that also the models would be upgraded to 2013 standards by making the models higher res, higher detail.

I see the same model, same texture.

What's wrong with the bloom effect? Can you dial that down in options?

Where's the grass? And the ground textures are the same?

Maybe I'm playing devil's advocate here.. but I'm not really impressed what I'm seeing here. yet?

i agree that i had higher expectations for graphics,but i guess we will have to wait for the release and see for our self how

immersive the game has become,if its still dissapointing then,you might consider the russian counterpart of steelbeasts made by logos sims:)

[Ssnake]

Keep in mind that technically we're still in the "consolation prize" phase. I've been taking screenshots in a featureless desert, so there isn't much visual splendor to begin with. Also, while we do overhaul most of the vehicle models, keep in mind that we're still a small team. In addition to that, we need to maintain backwards compatibility. We can't start from a clean slate, but have to build on top of what's already there, or to replace parts of the artwork or code with something that offers the same or better quality (and then something extra that warranted the replacement).

Therefore you won't see a fundamentally new look in all the screenshots. It's never been my intent to inflate expectations. Still I think that you'll recognize it as a distinct improvement over the current version 2.6.

Yes, the screenshots were made with an HDR bloom effect enabled. In the current beta, this is optional, and I don't think that it is one of the graphics features that we'll be forcing on the user. Keep in mind though that a static screenshot will transport only so much info. You'll have to see it in motion to fully appreciate the change.

[Ssnake]

It is probably worth of note that Miro started working on the new engine about ten months ago, and that the artists learned about the new requirements for artwork only about three months later. The visual differences that you will see in the coming screenshots is therefore the result of about seven months of intense work. A work that will be continued after release (though we could not possibly keep up the current pace if the team is supposed to regain its sanity).

[Lt DeFault]

[...]I'm not really impressed what I'm seeing here.

Yes, I agree. I mean, it's so easy to make a visually stunning combat simulator that's also accurate in terms of physics with dozens of highly detailed AFVs, all with a team of less than...I dunno...30 people. That's why there's so many to choose from, right? :diable:

Disclaimer: This post is entirely tongue-in-cheek and not meant to offend or start an argument.

[Arvigna]

:drink:

1 vaut mieux que 2 tu l'auras ....

i don't know how translate !!!

[Lt DeFault]

1 vaut mieux que 2 tu l'auras ....

In English: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."

Edit: ...I think

[apelles]

I don't know. I think the Steel Beast is the best looking combat sim. Not the most fancy, but the most functional graphic what we need. I do not think that should be a lot of development in this area.

I'm not for the Battlefield like graphic.

[BlackDeath]

Radical as in "will have civilians in it (up to 12 parties in a scenario)", "new render engine", "50 new weapon systems", "25 new playable units", "improved path finding", "autonomous navigation for car and pedestrian traffic", "dynamic weather conditions"?

Or is that not radical enough?

i'm not sure to understand but can you please explain what you mean by "up to 12 parties in a scenario"?

[Skybird03]

What's wrong with the bloom effect? Can you dial that down in options?

I admit that took my attention, too. The single trees in sunlight from the side were almost faded out and looked... well, not coinvincing, and definitely not en par with tress as they are right now.

So regarding the pics we got so far I also would say the Bloom needs an option to get toned down - or switched off.

I hope trees on later pics look better.

[Ssnake]

I did so in the four previous "Consolation Prize" threads.

[Jartsev]

i'm not sure to understand but can you please explain what you mean by "up to 12 parties in a scenario"?

10 more sides in addition to current Blue and Red !? :biggrin:

[Ssnake]

IThe single trees in sunlight from the side were almost faded out and looked... well, not coinvincing, and definitely not en par with tress as they are right now.

So regarding the pics we got so far I also would say the Bloom needs an option to get toned down - or switched off.

You see, apparently this is the core of a hot debate in the whole programming/visual effects/computer graphics community, as I learned a few weeks ago. Some say that if it isn't like this or more, it's not "bloom". The way it is at the moment it's the lowest possible setting in the render API. Apparently you would rather belong to the other party that says that this "bloom" is artificial and overdone (and personally, I too tend to agree).

If we can only have this either on or off, we'll keep it optional. As a transient effect I think it could be acceptable. We'll see.