awesome..check it out

[diveplane]

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=003506

 

http://www.tanksim.com/reviews/steel_beasts_pro.htm

[diveplane]

http://files.rlgaming.com/SBPPEvideo-B.wmv

 

video here

[Witchking]

wow...those shots are amazing. :)

 

 

Funny that lockon's models are even more detailed...yet we only see them destroyed...most of the time. I Hope ED can raise the immersion factor with terrain like that :p....and keep the model poly count low....for a reasonable and an other important factor ...immersion.

[diveplane]

$130 and that sim is yours.....

[diveplane]

http://www.tanksim.com/reviews/images/steelbeastspro/SS_14_47_22.jpg

 

camo is great

 

http://www.tanksim.com/reviews/images/steelbeastspro/T-72%20Pic%202.JPG

 

hinds comin in wow

http://www.tanksim.com/reviews/images/steelbeastspro/Hind%202.JPG

[diveplane]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y06DUEyFRjk&search=military%20tanks

 

cool

[Sleek]

I've been registered at SBpro site (http://www.steelbeasts.com/) for a short while now and it looks good..check out the videos section here: http://www.steelbeasts.com/index3.html

 

SB Pro Forums:http://www.steelbeasts.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=index

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VSB1 is another good lookin training sim expesive as well tho::

 

http://members.chello.nl/~wf.vanwamel/120mm.jpg

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v433/jb_uksp/Gallery/UAV.jpg (no pop up's there lol)

 

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=003521

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VSB1 site

 

http://www.virtualbattlespace.com/

 

Forums here..

 

http://www.vbsresources.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=387&sid=16c5c1bb2575c54ebb337dd46fe5830f

[ARM505]

Funnily enough, I've shown some BS screenshots in the SB forums, as have others! SB is not an eye candy sim. Everything there is made to be functional. That said, the terrain is great because everything blends so smoothly - the colours and fading is great, the cammo is truly effective. It's a fantastic sim - worth every cent. Great support from the developers, who are constantly on the forums. Problems are actively discussed with and by the community, and the devs are really open about what they plan on doing. It's great.

[Witchking]

Holy crap. :p

 

ED...THIS IS HOW THE TERRRAIN NEEDS TO LOOK for a Heli sim.

[NEODARK]

why,

 

when you can have transparent trees :P

 

ah, who am I kidding, I love lockon :D

[Glowing_Amraam]

Quick glance at the terrain textures, and you see repetive textures after a few metres. lol

 

Looks great from ground view though. But thats it.

[AndyHill]

The colours and fading are definitely great. It's also a known trick to use fading colors to create a sense of distance. Something Lock on might benefit from as well.

 

______________________________________________________________

Lock on MUST have a dynamic campaign engine with multiplayer capability!

[plug pray]

not depending on whether these textures are repeating, or not, or something else, this picture with hinds eels realistic. You just look and understand- that's how it's supposed to be...

Looking far away forward to see a screen from the Next project a few years later)). Interesting, will it be a kickass thing... and i think, it will.

[Sleek]

yup the Hind screen looks real allmost.

[Weta43]

They are nice graphics. Occasionaly units seemed disconnected from the landscape, but on the whole I guess they look exactly like the graphics you should have for a SIM of this type - somewhere between a good FPS & a flight sim, plenty of - but not insane - detail up close & good out to a few Km, but you could see tiling in the distance. Probably wouldn't be quite so nice flying over @ 500m in a chopper & less so from 8000m.

 

I did like the sound of this & hope for something in this vein for E.D.'s next project:

 

'By left and right-clicking on the map you select your units and command them by sub-menus that include orders for unit behavior, route-planning, speed settings, tactics, timers and condition-dependant Boolean operators in order to synchronize large formation’s movements, and so on. For example, stationary units can be given orders whether they should defend their location when enemy comes in sight, or should embark on the next route segment, or that they should fight but leave when suffering a certain amount of losses, and how they should react to incoming fire. Units traveling can be given certain tactics orders that define their formation, spacing, speed, reaction to incoming fire, enemy’s presence and enemy’s flanking attempts. Should it be a scout mission where they automatically stop or withdraw in reverse when contact is made, or should they stop, find hull-down positions and engage, or make a storming assault running for the next waypoint? Routes are established between battle positions you define on the map, each BP (battle position) can have several different routes separating from it, each route with its condition that must be met so that the unit reaching that BP will embark on it. So alternate routes can give the mission very different orders of events whenever you replay them, depending on various conditions or events being met as triggers to make units embark on them. Since this mechanism also is used by the mission designer to setup the behavior of the enemy, and since these triggers also can be randomized, you can face bad surprises even in missions you have played many times before. You need not necessarily define separate strings of waypoints for each of your units, instead you can create a network of connected BP (battle positions) that is used by ALL your units and regulated by different conditions being met or not. Think of it as trains traveling the same railroad system but differing in their behavior due to different signal settings at different times. Units also are not slaved to use the straight line between two battle positions, they will evade and run around obstacles all by themselves and will not headlessly stick to the course if coming under fire.'

 

'During overland travel, units under AI control (both Blue and Red) will follow roads if they are in column formation and have no dedicated scout or breaching-orders, and if the orientation of the road is not more than 30° off the direction to the next waypoint.'

[ARM505]

There's no way ED will program even half of what SB has in terms of mission planning and AI behaviour into BS for ground units. After all, ground warfare is SB's speciality. The Hinds were added merely as a bit of an afterthought, and are the only airbourne units. There are no AAA units or SAMs. Hinds have to be brought down by HMG, coax, or main gun fire. Alternatively you can die, hope they go away, or don't see you. The gfx are definately suited to your eye being on ground level. It's the colours and haze that really makes things seem real.

 

SB has a brilliant mission editor, you can create some epic battles, and the AI is actually pretty good.

[Witchking]

The concept here is that ED needs to shift their focus off their old engine. I mean..I don't say it "sucks" or anything.....All I mean...is that ...it is probably time to make a transition to a new engine that is more open ended. Sometimes its best to start off from scratch...or...use other engines like unreal 3 which are optimised better due to bigger staff size..i.e., more resources...more testing.

 

I understand it is hard to scrap your own work. But I am sure that Ed can definately make a gem if they probably start from scratch (for the next ED's game). Make an engine like BOB2's .....hey...what the heck..even license oleg's new engine...it would be a good relationship...two leaders in flight sims who potray two different periods of time....coming together to make a modern sim....that would rock. :)

[warthogmadman987]

Ya, but a joint operation happening like that would be a miracle.

[Weta43]

'There's no way ED will program even half of what SB has in terms of mission planning and AI behaviour into BS for ground units.'

True.

I didn't mean they should do it for ground units, but (going back to an oldy but a goody) they could add triggers & more complex, tailorable logic for the airborne AI (say tell a fighter to: attack anything within 'n' km?, attack anything that paints it with radar?, attack anything that locks it? attack anything that locks the flight it's escorting etc.. or at an attack point tell the ground pounder to attack this target if these conditions are met & this other target if not) & a bit more complexity to the ground units (even the use a road if it's less than 30 degrees off course)

[badaboom]

The video kinda reminded me of GUNSHIP in a wierd way,anyone else think so?

[ARM505]

'There's no way ED will program even half of what SB has in terms of mission planning and AI behaviour into BS for ground units.'

True.

I didn't mean they should do it for ground units, but (going back to an oldy but a goody) they could add triggers & more complex, tailorable logic for the airborne AI (say tell a fighter to: attack anything within 'n' km?, attack anything that paints it with radar?, attack anything that locks it? attack anything that locks the flight it's escorting etc.. or at an attack point tell the ground pounder to attack this target if these conditions are met & this other target if not) & a bit more complexity to the ground units (even the use a road if it's less than 30 degrees off course)

 

I should have added that they could definately use some of those things to improve the AI planning, you're 100% right.