Steel Beasts Pro 2.6x upgrade

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

No i simple want to simulate the more subtle aspects of the battlefield no one else seem to think about, in order to make a more complete and versatile experience. I prefer more asymetrical and non-linear scenarios than the usual move from a to b and take that hill or defend that pass or something like that, something like commanding an air borne battalion dropped behind enemy lines and mess up the resupply routes and try to divert as many enemy forces as possible from the front line to releave your own forces and stuff like that, missions where you do not have a frontline and have to depend a lot on stealth, maneuvering, deception, surprizes and ambushes and also electronic warfare. I would like to try something different than the usual linear hammering of the enemy.

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.

I read somewhere that infantry squads can now be split into smaller groups ? Is it possible in the latest release to move only one individual in the squad ?

Oh and btw did the possible theatre size increased in SBP ?

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.

So i take from that that i can have neutral traffic in the game then.

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.

I know all that.

The heading of WPs as a m atter of fact can be chnaged, and very easily.

I know all that but my point was to make it even easier and faster. As fast and easy as possible, what is wrong with that ?

You start to become a bit too taste-dependent, eh?

No i just hate bureaucracy, Why should i spend 30 minutes with setting all the waypoints and options if it can be done in 5 minutes instead through simple editor improvements ? Editor ergonomy should fit like a glove, period!

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.

Btw is the manual downloadable somewhere before i order that thing ? I would like to see first what's in there.

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?

No i haven't, that is why i am asking you.

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.

What 400 ? I have to try each of them. Man i can't wait to cross rivers with bridge layers and clear minefields and stuff. I have been waiting for this. Oh btw is it actually possible for the crew of a vehicle to actually disembark and move on foot ? I am tired of loosing my BRDM's just because i took a peek over the hill.

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.

So you can guarantee me that red and blufor triggers/events are interlockable in SBP ? Have you actually tried the stuff out that you proposed above in response to my complaints ?

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.

I see that i actually confused dollars with euros that eases the shock a littlebit. Thank's for the clarification.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Deamon

No i simple want to simulate the more subtle aspects of the battlefield no one else seem to think about, in order to make a more complete and versatile experience. I prefer more asymetrical and non-linear scenarios than the usual move from a to b and take that hill or defend that pass or something like that

Such scenarios exist - in huge numbers.

something like commanding an air borne battalion

Do you have an idea of the work overload you would suffer as a commander of such a force? SBP can handle batallion, even brigade sized forces, I tried and tested that for sure in 2006, but there is a reason why scenariodesigners do not design scenarios that set a blue batallion against a red brigade. SBP focusses on training the experience on platoon and company level. And competently handling a company already will have you busy. Several companies under your command - not too good an idea.

dropped behind enemy lines and mess up the resupply routes and try to divert as many enemy forces as possible from the front line to releave your own forces and stuff like that, missions where you do not have a frontline and have to depend a lot on stealth, maneuvering, deception, surprizes and ambushes and also electronic warfare. I would like to try something different than the usual linear hammering of the enemy.

SBP focusses on the tactical scale for sure, you talk about the strategic level. Which means you are completely in the wrong department and maybe should focus on something like Conquest of the Aegean, or Battles for the Bulge. SBP is a tactical simulator, no operational or strategic.

I read somewhere that infantry squads can now be split into smaller groups ? Is it possible in the latest release to move only one individual in the squad ?

If he is the only survivor, yes.
Squads can now be loaded by just any transport unit, they are no longer attached to their own PC. Their weapon loadout can be altered, and since longer time they are split into heavy and light sections. There can also be HMG, ATGM and MMG sections of three fighters independet from any squad. I think helicopter transport also is possible now, I am not sure. But I warn you, it is no infantry simulator, the behaviour of infantry still leaves a lot to be desired. They improve it, they have turned to 3D, they want toi improve for the next release in one year - but infantry is not where SBP shines. For infantry, go to ArmA. For mechanised warfare, go to SBP.

Oh and btw did the possible theatre size increased in SBP ?

I think 22x22 km is still the maximum. Which is more than you need for a tactical simulation of tanks.

I know all that but my point was to make it even easier and faster. As fast and easy as possible, what is wrong with that ?

Nothing. Just messes up the ergonmomy of the interface if for every rare detail a separate option gets implemented. It is like a TV remote control with 50 buttons, and one with 20 buttons working via menues - I (and SBP) prefer the latter, for 95% of the time it is more comfortable. It seems nobody misses the options you lined out - I read no comments about these things anywhere in the past 5 years. I think you get lost in too specialised microdetails. Have a taste of what you already have with the sim right now. Play it. You will be surprised how fast you probably forget the things you described. Like I have completely forgotten that there still are no shadows in the world, and that suspension still is not implemented, and maybe never will be. It simply does not matter.

No i just hate bureaucracy, Why should i spend 30 minutes with setting all the waypoints and options if it can be done in 5 minutes instead through simple editor improvements ? Editor ergonomy should fit like a glove, period!

See above. I think you get lost in too many exceptions and sub-specialisations. Try the editor that is there, do a company assaulting a batallion in defence, or defend against a brigade attacking from randomised directions, needing you to shift around your numerically inferior forces to the shifting hotspots of action. You will be busy with many of the scenarios that already are there. You will already be busy with just 1-platoon scenarios. And the specialised effects you demand - can already be acchieved for the most. Just needs a little routine and practice.

Btw is the manual downloadable somewhere before i order that thing ? I would like to see first what's in there.

Try here:
http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/257

And the SBP wikipedia:
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/in...ge#Playtesting

Oh btw is it actually possible for the crew of a vehicle to actually disembark and move on foot ?

Squads yes, crews no. There is also the UGV of the squad, a remote-controlled ground robot that can steer away up to 200 or 300 m.

So you can guarantee me that red and blufor triggers/events are interlockable in SBP ? Have you actually tried the stuff out that you proposed above in response to my complaints ?

I guarantee you nothing, I am only human. Longer time ago I have done missions for my own enjoyment where I defined blue condition, maybe a force entering a zone, I then linked them to a blue I think "event" it is called, and these events can be the variable for events of the other side: red-event true when blueevent true. And then on the red side of things: red action go if red-event true. Timing variables, randomisations per mission and randomisations per call also are possible.

There is a SBP resources thread amongst the stickies at the top of the forum list. There also is a video thread, recommended is escpecially the Brave Rifles Series, and in general the MP-videos by Zipuli. And then there is eSims own youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/eSimGamesDtl#

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Such scenarios exist - in huge numbers.

Good! I guess i gotta try it then.

Do you have an idea of the work overload you would suffer as a commander of such a force? SBP can handle batallion, even brigade sized forces, I tried and tested that for sure in 2006, but there is a reason why scenariodesigners do not design scenarios that set a blue batallion against a red brigade. SBP focusses on training the experience on platoon and company level. And competently handling a company already will have you busy. Several companies under your command - not too good an idea.

That totally depends on how you set up a scenario. I made a scenario once where you command a regiment very comfortable. Besides that if i am saying battalion i don't automatically mean micromanaging a battalion simultaniously but rather micromanaging a company while the rest is kept in reserve.

SBP focusses on the tactical scale for sure, you talk about the strategic level. Which means you are completely in the wrong department and maybe should focus on something like Conquest of the Aegean, or Battles for the Bulge. SBP is a tactical simulator, no operational or strategic.

No i am talking about tactical level perhaps with one or two minor strategical elements.

For infantry, go to ArmA. For mechanised warfare, go to SBP.

I want both. This was perhaps one of the reasons why i have resisted for so long cause SBP really lacks in this area, although i could rectify some of the flaws with a creative combination of vehicles and infantry. But there are so many improvements on the tank side of things that i am beginning to considering it anyway.

I think 22x22 km is still the maximum. Which is more than you need for a tactical simulation of tanks.

Is 22 the max per dimension or can i also have 44*11, f.e. ?

Nothing. Just messes up the ergonmomy of the interface if for every rare detail a separate option gets implemented. It is like a TV remote control with 50 buttons, and one with 20 buttons working via menues - I (and SBP) prefer the latter, for 95% of the time it is more comfortable. It seems nobody misses the options you lined out - I read no comments about these things anywhere in the past 5 years. I think you get lost in too specialised microdetails. Have a taste of what you already have with the sim right now. Play it. You will be surprised how fast you probably forget the things you described. Like I have completely forgotten that there still are no shadows in the world, and that suspension still is not implemented, and maybe never will be. It simply does not matter.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend what i am talking about. I haven't said to add 30 more buttons but remove 15 of them. So that you have a remote control with 5 buttons that can do the same trick, much easier and much faster. It is meant to optimize away totally superfluouse overhead of editing waypoints.

See above. I think you get lost in too many exceptions and sub-specialisations. Try the editor that is there, do a company assaulting a batallion in defence, or defend against a brigade attacking from randomised directions, needing you to shift around your numerically inferior forces to the shifting hotspots of action. You will be busy with many of the scenarios that already are there. You will already be busy with just 1-platoon scenarios. And the specialised effects you demand - can already be acchieved for the most. Just needs a little routine and practice.

Well apparently i haven't tried SBP yet, perhaps partially i am beating a dead horse here if there are such improvements already. So we have to see first but besides that i have my own agenda, i have my own reasons why i want to play this game, they are certainly different from yours. You don't need to try to convince me to change my expectations cause they won't change. I am merely checking out how close the latest release got to my expectations, nothing more nothing less.

I guarantee you nothing, I am only human.

Oh, you mean you are actually not sure what you are talking about ?

Longer time ago I have done missions for my own enjoyment where I defined blue condition, maybe a force entering a zone, I then linked them to a blue I think "event" it is called, and these events can be the variable for events of the other side: red-event true when blueevent true. And then on the red side of things: red action go if red-event true. Timing variables, randomisations per mission and randomisations per call also are possible.

Alright, that's what i wanted to know.

There is a SBP resources thread amongst the stickies at the top of the forum list. There also is a video thread, recommended is escpecially the Brave Rifles Series, and in general the MP-videos by Zipuli. And then there is eSims own youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/eSimGamesDtl#

Thanks i know that and as a matter of fact i have like 3,5+GB on videos about SBP and watch them time and again. I watched the brave rifles a dozen times, i know zipuli and all that.

@Lieste:
Thanks but i think the manual would be good enough already.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Deamon

That totally depends on how you set up a scenario. I made a scenario once where you command a regiment very comfortable. Besides that if i am saying battalion i don't automatically mean micromanaging a battalion simultaniously but rather micromanaging a company while the rest is kept in reserve.

Understand that SBP focusses on gunning and commanding from a TC's place, and commanding that single vehicle, or a platoon. That is where it's major competence lies. Everything else, for example that you can also control a whole batallion or more, is luxury and bonus and not the core of what the key customer - the military - wants.

I want both.

No way. Not with ArmA, not with VBS, not with SBP.

Is 22 the max per dimension or can i also have 44*11, f.e. ?

22 km is the max per dimension. Which by doctrinal ideal provides the front width of more than a division, if I am not mistaken.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend what i am talking about. I haven't said to add 30 more buttons but remove 15 of them. So that you have a remote control with 5 buttons that can do the same trick, much easier and much faster. It is meant to optimize away totally superfluouse overhead of editing waypoints.

It seems both the community and the designers are in disagreement with you there. The first does noit demand what you talk about, the latter does not have it on mind by himself.

Well apparently i haven't tried SBP yet, perhaps partially i am beating a dead horse here if there are such improvements already. So we have to see first but besides that i have my own agenda, i have my own reasons why i want to play this game, they are certainly different from yours. You don't need to try to convince me to change my expectations cause they won't change. I am merely checking out how close the latest release got to my expectations, nothing more nothing less.

Your expecations are your expectations. I just try to tell you what it is that you get. I do not get anything for convincing you of anything.

Oh, you mean you are actually not sure what you are talking about ?

I mean that like everybody else I could make mistakes.

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The new vehicle park 2.640 (without helicopters shown).

Ja! Ja! Ja!
Lots of new stuff to set on fire

Understand that SBP focusses on gunning and commanding from a TC's place, and commanding that single vehicle, or a platoon. That is where it's major competence lies. Everything else, for example that you can also control a whole batallion or more, is luxury and bonus and not the core of what the key customer - the military - wants.

I perfactly understand that but i also don't care. I merely hope to get what i want one day.

No way. Not with ArmA, not with VBS, not with SBP.

Oh, btw when i said i want both i didn't meant that SBP should become also a tactic shooter but merely a much more leaborated infantry part that can be controled much better.

Now don't tell me that the military is the actual customer of eSim and that they catter only their demands and that this is a tank simulator in the first place and that my other wishes are not going to happen. Well let me tell you this, there are only so and so much vehicles in the real world and they are still fully occupied to feature them(respectively whatever the military customers request) But apparently this stuff is all featured one day and what then ? Are they just going to shut down the company or what ? No of course not, they will of course expend and eventually return to making games again and introduce more elements to the game of which improvements of the infantry and all the other stuff is the obvious way to go and this is where i hope to finally get what i want.

And besides that i have the gut feel that the military itself will demand a more and more elaborated infantry part. No one says that they will keep using it merely as a tank sim. The use could be expendad also to train infantry commanders and stuff. The trend to use PC sims for military training will of course further increase with time. But on the other hand there are of course purpose designed sims for that like VBS and stuff. So i guess we will have to see.

So, so far i have stayed away from it and just looked them over the shoulder from some distance away, reckoning how close the thing got to my ambitions already.

I feel quite tempted to get into it finally but i just discovered the "Steel Armour" project and i am wondering if it could be the better option for me. Perhaps i should wait till it gets out first. But no, wait, there is the habbit now to equip the games with nasty copy protection systems. Hmm, perhaps the dongle solution of SBP may be the only viable option for me.

I am so desquamated by this new trend that i don't even consider to buy new games anymore. I play only the old stuff once in a while and open source games but besides that i have pretty much abandoned gaming because of that.

22 km is the max per dimension. Which by doctrinal ideal provides the front width of more than a division, if I am not mistaken.

That is certainly the peve that i have with SB. There is no way you could ever run out of fuel on this map so that logistics become an issues suddely. I like scenarios where you have to cross large terrains. BTW you do not need to reply to that, i know what you are going to say now, i am merely thinking loud.

It seems both the community and the designers are in disagreement with you there. The first does noit demand what you talk about, the latter does not have it on mind by himself.

The community isn't in disagreement with me cause i am the community. What the designers agree or disagree with you simple don't know. Only when they get confronted with this idea and reply to that we can see what they really think of that.

That the designers haven't thought about that improvement yet is perhaps because they have a million other things on their mind already and simple never had the opportunity to even think about it.

Your expecations are your expectations. I just try to tell you what it is that you get. I do not get anything for convincing you of anything.

I see, i just get the impression sometimes that you kind of try to persuade me to change into the favour of eSims development policy or something.

I mean that like everybody else I could make mistakes.

Sure thing. But if you are not sure then just say so. But thanks anyway.

[Deamon]

Oh btw is the M60A3 actually manable ?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Deamon

Oh, btw when i said i want both i didn't meant that SBP should become also a tactic shooter but merely a much more leaborated infantry part that can be controled much better.

As I already said, they will do some imporvements to the ciontrol logic, and there is some demand for suiting the sim towards insirgency warfare. But you can also see the result is a focus on more APC and IFV options, not so much on including an ifantry component. Their management also indicated they expect that the focus in Wetsern arme focus sooner or later will swing back towards more heavy mechjnised warfare, sooner or later.

Now don't tell me that the military is the actual customer of eSim and that they catter only their demands and that this is a tank simulator in the first place and that my other wishes are not going to happen.

I don't "tell". It's a fact I state. From the player sales they cannot live.

Well let me tell you this, there are only so and so much vehicles in the real world and they are still fully occupied to feature them(respectively whatever the military customers request) But apparently this stuff is all featured one day and what then ? Are they just going to shut down the company or what ? No of course not, they will of course expend and eventually return to making games again and introduce more elements to the game of which improvements of the infantry and all the other stuff is the obvious way to go and this is where i hope to finally get what i want.

Many years ahead, and an uncertain future it is. Most people prefer to take what is available NOW and enjoy the time until then with playing it. And I tend to think that is wise. But if you want to wait another number of years just to get the perfect, the one solution that fits all yopu demand in detail - feel free to do that.

And besides that i have the gut feel that the military itself will demand a more and more elaborated infantry part. No one says that they will keep using it merely as a tank sim.

So far they exclusively buy it for tanker training. I am not in eSim'S heads and paper stuff and so do not know what is going on. But in 2006 when I put together an itnerview with their technical director I asked him about the dfistant future. And in 2006 he said that their competence lies in the field of tanks and mechanised warfare. It is here where the sim can compete with the rivalling products the military buys in form of hardware cabin simulatores for millions of dollars, and SBP competes successfully there due to its aggressive pricing. But this argument is not existent anymore when the focus shifts on infantry games, since here other software producers already have established themselves.

That is certainly the peve that i have with SB. There is no way you could ever run out of fuel on this map so that logistics become an issues suddely.

You can. And do. Some vehicles have shorter legs than others. And fueltanks can be perforated in battle. All of a sudden those fuel tankers and engineer units, CS trucks and Bergepanzer and ambulances make sense.

The community isn't in disagreement with me cause i am the community. What the designers agree or disagree with you simple don't know. Only when they get confronted with this idea and reply to that we can see what they really think of that.

Short attack of megalomania, eh? You are just one person, and even an outsider not knowing the sim. The community is the dominant majority over you. And for soem strange reason in five years I have not heared them saying what you said. That'S what makes you an outsider with a minority opinion. And what the developer thinks about how he should do things you can see in the results of how he actually does handle things, and designs features.

That the designers haven't thought about that improvement yet is perhaps because they have a million other things on their mind already and simple never had the opportunity to even think about it.

Maybe. Or yours is a minority opinion.

Sure thing. But if you are not sure then just say so. But thanks anyway.

If I am not sure of what I say, I wouldn't say it at all or add a line that I am not certain. Like every human, I can make mistakes without realising it.

Try to become a bit more open-minded. You have so specific demands and expectations that you probbaly will wait for years and years and still do not get what you want. All the while you are missing stuff that is very good already and is praised by many. The more your focus gets "tunnelised" or fixiated on specific demands, the less likely it is your desires will get fulfilled. You wait - but what did you get in the end? Nothing. You want to play huge scenarios, but have no ida how big the ones can get you alkready can do with SBP - I played some scenarios that took me breaks and several hpours over the day, due to my style of playing and wanting to avoid losses as much as possible. A scenario designed with any of the options you outlined above, would not make a dramatic difference in final effect. So relax, and look at it more easy. Yopu are interested in playing the best tank sim there is and that is closer to reality than any other - play this. You are not interested in thnat? Forget SBP, and spend your time on something more useful or to your taste.

But sitting five years just to see some incredibly specific demands in desiogn getting fulfilled and over that denying all the cream that already is available - to me that is an extremely strange choice somebody could make. But of course, you are free to decide the way you want. My advise after these two days of talking would be: forget about SBP, and never think of it again. Because I think you will never be satisfied, honestly. So just move on and enjoy yourself better that way.

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I don't "tell". It's a fact I state. From the player sales they cannot live.

With "tell" i meant you don't need to comment that. Besides that i see i posted that sentece incomplete, i meant to say: "Now don't tell me that the military is the actual customer of eSim and that they catter only their demands and that this is a tank simulator in the first place, BECAUSE I KNOW ALL THAT!"

Besides that an armour simulation isn't quite an armour simulation without infantry. I also feel i have to clarify what i am talking about when i am speaking of infantry improvements. For the most part i am actually quite satisfied with the infantry the way it was in SB, i could work around some limitations alright but there remains a small rest of inabilities of the infantry that just drives me nuts, ruined the experience for me time and again and that prevented it to be a really usefull tool. Which are:

*The inability to crawl and stay low when i say to stay low.
*The inability to stay upright(while not moving). I would like to have the option to lay, crouch or stay upright, so that i can control the exposure of the soldier over the cover.
*The inability to shoot from a standing and crouching position.
*The inability to stay right where i want them to stay, they always run unauthorized for cover and screw up my ambush set ups.
* Throwing handgrandes, even if there is no visual contact to the enemy, just trow grenades as far as possible into the direction that i want it to. So that i can take out enemy soldiers on the other side of the road without storming over the ridge commiting suicide. It should also be able to engage enemy infantry with RPG's and ATGM's.(although in SBP that should be possbile already when controlling an ATGM manually )
*The inability to charge forward while the other half of the squad provides coverinng fire. ( Although that one was fixed in SBP already ? )
*The inability to split the team down to individual soldiers. I am tired of being forced to sacrifice the whole squad while trying to take a peak over that hill.(I am not sure if my memory seves me right but i think it was possible in SBP already at list split the squad into 2 groups which would mean to me a lot already ).
*Missing options for setting formations and formation spacing. While at it it should also be possible to change the facing of the fomation by simple looking into the direction you want the formation to face to and press a key.
*It should be possible to load an infantry squad into any vehicle and not just the one to which it belongs. ( Although i think that is already possible in SBP )
*Infantry squads should act completely independently from the IFV when i seperate them from it. In SB when i send the IFV elsewhere it suddenly stops and waits till the squad has mounted the IFV again, which wouldn't occure only when the IFV is far away from the squad. ( Although Sky indicated that this already has been fixed in SBP ).
*And in the context of SBP engaging low and slow flying air targets in close proximity. Is that actually possible already ? BTW does SBP features manpads yet ?
*All vehicles should actually have a crew that can dismount from the vehicle and continue on foot. So that i can disembark one crew member and let him run up the hill and take a peek over the edge with a binocular so that i do not need to expose the IFV and get blow away or just to avoid detection. Also in case the vehicle gets lost and the crew survives being able to continue the mission. This feature would be very high on my priority list and would also allow some hilarious rescue missions when a vehicle gets immobilized and you attempt then to rescue the crew under fire.( I think this are the little things that would make a big difference immersion wise ) For that matter the AI should be able to use the vehicle as cover and eventually disembark on the opposite side of the vehicle from where the fire is comming from, if possible. And while at it the infantry should have the general ability to use vehicles as cover and also move with them over open areas while using it as cover in a very tight formation spacing which is a common practice in reality. Also pop up over the endge of a vehicle and fire, provided the vehicle is not too high of course. I also would have almost said that it should be possible to mount the infantry ONTOP of a vehicle so that when a squad looses its IFV you just mount them ontop of that M1 and get out of there(you know the drill ? On the BTR you are saver than inside ) but in order not to enrage Sky too much i won't That stuff would certainly allow some hilarious and realistic missions.
*Another thing that i am not going to say is that i hope to see flamethrowers and Handflampatronen some day. That would be very handy in sticky situations.

I think that would be it for me. I am wondering how much of this was already implemented in SBP ? ( This is the actual reason why i post the list here ) But that they switched to 3D infantry kind of suggests to me major infantry improvements in the near future. Also that one scene in the video here...



...where you see that one biker drop that one insergent with the RPG at the bridge. This is just the kind of stuff that i look for.

I really hope they will fix that in the near future cause with this additional abilites the game would get a whole new dimension. Sky are you testing the new release already ?

And Sky pleeeeeaaaaase don't post comments about that that you have posted already above.

So far they exclusively buy it for tanker training. I am not in eSim'S heads and paper stuff and so do not know what is going on. But in 2006 when I put together an itnerview with their technical director I asked him about the dfistant future. And in 2006 he said that their competence lies in the field of tanks and mechanised warfare. It is here where the sim can compete with the rivalling products the military buys in form of hardware cabin simulatores for millions of dollars, and SBP competes successfully there due to its aggressive pricing. But this argument is not existent anymore when the focus shifts on infantry games, since here other software producers already have established themselves.

2006 ? That is 5 years old news. I remember a statement, don't know where i read it, in an interview or something that eSim annonced(or at least intended to announce) to their military customers to reserve one year(i don't remember which it was supposed to be) to cater the demands of private customers. And in that context, while it is true that they cannot survive from private customers alone the private customers are still there regardless and i am wondering at this point for what percentage of the revenue do the private customers account because if it is significant they can be actually expected to cater the needs of them as well accordingly.

You can. And do. Some vehicles have shorter legs than others. And fueltanks can be perforated in battle. All of a sudden those fuel tankers and engineer units, CS trucks and Bergepanzer and ambulances make sense.

I see. For that it obviously makes sense.

Short attack of megalomania, eh?

Oh you bought into that ? HAHA gotcha! That was meant to be a provocation, since you didn't seem to count me to the community. Unless of course your definition of communit excludes the SB community of which i am still an avid member. As a matter of fact SB is one of the games that i play the most, if you care to know and i am very much into armour.

You are just one person, and even an outsider not knowing the sim. The community is the dominant majority over you. And for soem strange reason in five years I have not heared them saying what you said. That'S what makes you an outsider with a minority opinion.

And that means what ?

And what the developer thinks about how he should do things you can see in the results of how he actually does handle things, and designs features.

This is only one way of interpreting what that means. It could just as well mean that he simple didn't knew it better at that time.

Maybe. Or yours is a minority opinion.

Since i run my own development for over 8 years now i can testify that as a developer(coder in particular) you always have a thousand things on your mind that are all somehow obvious and you go so fast from one issue to another that in the heat of the battle various other obvious ideas simple go unnoticed. It's like a bunch of enemies shooting at you from 10 different positions in all the heat and noise you won't be able to keep track of all of them because you are overwhelmed.

Try to become a bit more open-minded. You have so specific demands and expectations that you probbaly will wait for years and years and still do not get what you want.

I am not sure what open minded means here but besides my wishlist for improved infantry my demands are really just minor improvements to the editor.

All the while you are missing stuff that is very good already and is praised by many. The more your focus gets "tunnelised" or fixiated on specific demands, the less likely it is your desires will get fulfilled. You wait - but what did you get in the end? Nothing. You want to play huge scenarios, but have no ida how big the ones can get you alkready can do with SBP - I played some scenarios that took me breaks and several hpours over the day, due to my style of playing and wanting to avoid losses as much as possible.

Frankly i feel misunderstood by you. I certainly do have an idea how large the scenarios can get and i suppose there is no saving feature yet ? I play SB for years now and played all available scenarios. I would have gotten into SBP already if it wouldn't be so expensive so i sit, wait and watch for the right moment to strike. It's just a question of time till i will. Right now i am 50:50. The reason why i am posting here now is simple because i try to figure out if it's ripe for me already.

Also i don't feel that i am "tunnelising" at all. I am very enthusiastic about the progress made so far and expressed that here on several occasions it's just that i have the desires that i have. Besides the lacking infantry simulation there are only a few minor things that annoy me. Things that would be easy to implement and make the life of a scenario designer a hell of a lot easier. I played all the scenarios out there for SB and in the end started to make my own but quickely had to realize that the SB editor missed a few very essencial features that i would need to implement my ideas.

A scenario designed with any of the options you outlined above, would not make a dramatic difference in final effect.

To me it would.

But sitting five years just to see some incredibly specific demands in desiogn getting fulfilled and over that denying all the cream that already is available - to me that is an extremely strange choice somebody could make.

I feel misunderstood now even more.

But of course, you are free to decide the way you want. My advise after these two days of talking would be: forget about SBP, and never think of it again. Because I think you will never be satisfied, honestly. So just move on and enjoy yourself better that way.

My advice would be don't take what i say too personally, lol.