Steel Beasts Pro 2.6x upgrade

[Skybird]

The codemeter runtime environment that gets installed by 2.640, is the older version 4.30c. It will not hurt to go to their website and download the latest version 4.30d. 32- and 64-Bit versions available.

[Skybird]

I have just tested the new T-72M1, which now is playable and has a virtual 3D interior.

A nightmare! Compared to a Leopard-1A5DK (now coming with 3D interior and a new 3D HiRes vehicle model), almost primitive. The aiming procedure is time-consuming and primitive, the firing range is bad, the precision lacks, and poor handling. No secondary sights. Shooting at moving targets is - an aventure. A rolling coffin, I understand, and at eSim somebody said it was build with a life expectancy of firing ten shots before getting killed on mind, so what use to invest more into it... The IR (not to mix with thermal sights which the T-72 does not have...), only usable at night, has a usable range of maybe 300 meters or so. And it is so slow in reverse. It crawls.

I have argued in another thread that the Leopard-1 were totally superior. I now got an impression from handling, to what degree that superiority really made itself felt. Compared to the T-72, it apparently was rolling luxury, with fire control being superior in handling, and more precise fire over much greater range. Not to mention night battle.

Also had a first look at the other stuff that is in there. Very impressive upgrade this is, and some nice stuff for sure.

And then there is the firing procedure and sight separation in the Chally-2. At eSim they introduced the joke that the Challenger has a "distinctively British" fire control system. I now see the humour in that!

Good upgrade, very good package!

[Deamon]

It's getting harder and harder for me to resist. Sky were there any improvements to the scripting system ?

What the old SB missed in particular was the ability to use events/triggers of the opfor side to trigger stuff on your own side.

[Skybird]

Its the same logic in the background. However, some said at eSim that they think the AI acts even better now, but I cannot comment this pro or contra.

What kind of scripts do you need, as an example? I would say you can do an awful lot with the editor of SBP. It has time variables, area- and unit-condition variables.

I know the editors from Flashpoint and Sub Commd as well. Compared to these, SBP is as potent (at least), but more comfortable to handle I would say.

You can already trigger actions of own force depending on actions by red force. If red units (specified or unspecified) enter defined area Y, then blue unit Z starts moving towards position Omega, for example.

[Skybird]

The stickied SBP resources thread has been updated with the new vehicle list, and updates to general instructions.

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Its the same logic in the background. However, some said at eSim that they think the AI acts even better now, but I cannot comment this pro or contra.

What kind of scripts do you need, as an example? I would say you can do an awful lot with the editor of SBP. It has time variables, area- and unit-condition variables.

I know the editors from Flashpoint and Sub Commd as well. Compared to these, SBP is as potent (at least), but more comfortable to handle I would say.

You can already trigger actions of own force depending on actions by red force. If red units (specified or unspecified) enter defined area Y, then blue unit Z starts moving towards position Omega, for example.

The SB editor is certainly the best out there but it lacks scripting options. I tried to do a mission myself once but had to realize that it cannot be implemented the way i wanted it due to limitations in scripting options. I can trigger enemy reactions based on how many units are in a designated area but i cannot trigger the same action based on how many units have actually been detected in the designated area. This basically rules out the surprize and stealth factors that i badly need for my mission ideas.

What the scripting also misses is the ability to interlock bluefor and redfor triggers and events with each other. F.e. i cannot say "if redfor trigger SEND_BACK_UP = true and blue for unit xy is alife, print message "ELINT REPORT: Be adviced enemy radio traffic increased! Signal strength mostly weak.""

I also cannot make something like: "If redfor detects n bluefor units in area Obj1 and bluefor trigger JAM_REDFOR_RADIO = false set trigger SEND_BACK_UP = true" and i can't do something like: "If redfor trigger WE_ARE_COMMING = true, print message "ELINT REPORT: Enemey radio signal strengh increasing, be adviced enemy units are closing in on our position""

I also cannot make something like: "If bluefor trigger JAM_ENEMY_RADIO = true, expose bluefor unit xy position to redfor" and then do something like "If bluefor trigger JAM_ENEMY_RADIO = true, and unit xy is known to redfor, charge with redfor gunships to the last known position of bluefor unit xy and blow it up(for that matter i would like to have an option of prioritizing targets)" or alternatively create an artillary mission over the last know position of the blue for xy unit.

I think adding thouse options wouldn't be a big deal. Man i just wish SB would have a proper scripting language that you can write into text files so that you could make truly dynamic and complex AI behavior and hillarious missions(on a little side note, for my own sim i developed a scripting language that SB, flshpoint and sub command can only dream about).

Besides that SB should have an option to have neutral parties that eventually could become hostile if the player for example enters a penalty zone. This way you could define a territory of a neutral party that would become passively or actively hostile when you would cross its territory, perhaps SBP has this option already ?

BTW does SBP features civilian traffic ?

EDITOR
Eventhough the SB editor is the best out there i still feel it takes way to many clicks to get what i want. I feel setting all the waypoints is way to combersome and time consuming. Can't we get an option where we can define a template of settings and assign a key to it and then instead of setting the way points with the mouse button just press that key and the settings of the waypoint are set according to that template ? I am tired to click maself through all the same menus and options time and again for each and every waypoint.

Also, while at it, after the waypoint have been created, the waypoint should face the mouse cursor(that is if a tactic for it is assigned) so that you can quickely set its direction by simple moving the cursor a bit into the direction you want the position to face to without the need to click on the damn thing again and turn it around, this way you would also avoid to click on the wrong waypoint accidentally when you have several waypoints overlaping in a small area(which annois the crap out of me). With this improvements the time required to set complex paths would shrink to a fraction of what it is now.

Also does the editor have the capeability already to zoom in on the mouse cursor ? Is there a thread somewhere where improvement propositions can be submit to ?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Deamon

The SB editor is certainly the best out there but it lacks scripting options. I tried to do a mission myself once but had to realize that it cannot be implemented the way i wanted it due to limitations in scripting options. I can trigger enemy reactions based on how many units are in a designated area but i cannot trigger the same action based on how many units have actually been detected in the designated area. This basically rules out the surprize and stealth factors that i badly need for my mission ideas.

Define zone.
Make event: if any unit/this unit/unit XYZ sees x vehicles/tanks/APC/any enemy unit in zone, then set event to "valid"
Have conditioned route or conditioned respawns witrh a condition of "if event true then execute".

What the scripting also misses is the ability to interlock bluefor and redfor triggers and events with each other. F.e. i cannot say "if redfor trigger SEND_BACK_UP = true and blue for unit xy is alife, print message "ELINT REPORT: Be adviced enemy radio traffic increased! Signal strength mostly weak.""

Define RedFor Trigger.
Define BlueFor Trigger by "if Redfor Trigger true, than this trigger true".
Define action for Blue basing on BlueFor trigger true or not.

I also cannot make something like: "If redfor detects n bluefor units in area Obj1 and bluefor trigger JAM_REDFOR_RADIO = false set trigger SEND_BACK_UP = true" and i can't do something like: "If redfor trigger WE_ARE_COMMING = true, print message "ELINT REPORT: Enemey radio signal strengh increasing, be adviced enemy units are closing in on our position""

Why not?
Define Bluefor condition JAM_REDFOR_RADIO.
Define trigger Send_BackUP.
If redfor detects x blue forces in zone x, make them move into a defined zone.
Have a condition on the just above being true. Link it to the radio message you want to send.

I also cannot make something like: "If bluefor trigger JAM_ENEMY_RADIO = true, expose bluefor unit xy position to redfor" and then do something like "If bluefor trigger JAM_ENEMY_RADIO = true, and unit xy is known to redfor, charge with redfor gunships to the last known position of bluefor unit xy and blow it up(for that matter i would like to have an option of prioritizing targets)" or alternatively create an artillary mission over the last know position of the blue for xy unit.

Now it becomes quite detailed and specialsied, but by interlinkling blue and red conditions, I see not a principle problem there. It just turns things into a veryx complex scripting - and the question is if that is really what makes a mission that special. I have played too many missions that acchieved elements of surprise and randomisation by simpler constructs,. giving me a different expreience every time, than than I would think it is such specialisation likie you noutline here that makes SBP that different.

Keep it simplier. Maybe you just think it too complex. Too much effort for too little gain.

I think adding thouse options wouldn't be a big deal. Man i just wish SB would have a proper scripting language that you can write into text files so that you could make truly dynamic and complex AI behavior and hillarious missions(on a little side note, for my own sim i developed a scripting language that SB, flshpoint and sub command can only dream about).

They depend on having an ergonomic, easy-accessible and still capable, potent editor interface that does not draw too many resources in the background. For their military customers, doing all this in networks, but on not really gaming PCs, that might be a factor. I also think that maybe you just do not know how to workaround the limitations you believe to see.

Besides that SB should have an option to have neutral parties that eventually could become hostile if the player for example enters a penalty zone. This way you could define a territory of a neutral party that would become passively or actively hostile when you would cross its territory, perhaps SBP has this option already ?

There is demand for insurgency operations, and so some of the things you may thijunk about are on their list for the next or any of the next releases. The turn towards 3D infantry now is the first step in that evolution, also the ability to play infantry ATGMs now. There are also workaround via conditions to make civilian traffic a bit unpredictable in its inention, I seem to remember. There was a thread on that some weeks ago, but I forgot the details, since I was not overly interested in these things.

BTW does SBP features civilian traffic ?

Traffic? Well, there are vehicles, civilian ones, even a civilian bus and civilian ambulance now. Ten types all in all, I think. Haven'T played around with them. There are also armed civilian pickups.

EDITOR
Eventhough the SB editor is the best out there i still feel it takes way to many clicks to get what i want. I feel setting all the waypoints is way to combersome and time consuming. Can't we get an option where we can define a template of settings and assign a key to it and then instead of setting the way points with the mouse button just press that key and the settings of the waypoint are set according to that template ? I am tired to click maself through all the same menus and options time and again for each and every waypoint.

Each of the tatcical settings for a route define the default layout for speeds and behaviour on that route when adding WPs. But you can - but miust not - manually chnage these settings, both for routes and WPs. Factors to be in fluenced are speeds, behaviour when contact is made, formation.

Also, while at it, after the waypoint have been created, the waypoint should face the mouse cursor(that is if a tactic for it is assigned) so that you can quickely set its direction by simple moving the cursor a bit into the direction you want the position to face to without the need to click on the damn thing again and turn it around, this way you would also avoid to click on the wrong waypoint accidentally when you have several waypoints overlaping in a small area(which annois the crap out of me). With this improvements the time required to set complex paths would shrink to a fraction of what it is now.

The heading of WPs as a m atter of fact can be chnaged, and very easily. You start to become a bit too taste-dependent, eh? I think so,methign was chnaged there now anyhow, I have not tried it yet, but I think you now need to use a key to place a WP. Well, much to be tried out.

Also does the editor have the capeability already to zoom in on the mouse cursor ? Is there a thread somewhere where improvement propositions can be submit to ?

Mouse wheel support now is implemented, but I found it to be extremnely sensitive and do not use it. Maybe hardware-dependent.

eSim board, general forum, seems to be the place you want to look at to post.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/forumdisplay.php?f=3

Just curious since you first said you have reisted to the sim so far, but then said what you cannot do with it's editor. Do you own it and have you played it?

I mean there are already over 400 missions both SP and MP available, and regular MP events and several virtual units. After all, SBP is not an editor in the first, but a sim that begs to be played. The editor - is just a tool.

P.S.
I realise that you probably meant SB1 when referring to your expereinces with the editor? If yo, do yourself a faqvour, and clean your expectaiton logbook and start new, and get SBP, then see what you get in mission play. It does not compare anymore, it just does not compare.

Note that the price only then is 125 $ when you order the full pack with CD and booklet. You can skip the latter two, just get the software via download and dongle, take the manual as included pdf, and skip the CD option also. That way, it is just 100 dollars (74.88 euros at the time I type this). No shipping costs. While you can download and install immediately, and read the manuals, you need to wait for the delivery of the dongle before you can play, though.

[Skybird]

The new vehicle park 2.640 (without helicopters shown).





The new infantry models.