Graviteam
May 21, 2019, 07:13:16 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you like a Playable T-72?
Yes, will be great have this beauty
Yes, but only if there is another tank to face the T-72
No, I expect older units as a playable T-55
No, I prefer stay with old technology forever.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Do you like a Playable T-72 tank?  (Read 38029 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Asid
Hauptmann
***
Posts: 36



WWW
« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2015, 12:41:27 AM »

They marketed their program to the US military as a training aid.  They then adapted it for the game market.  Their emphasis would be on NATO equipment.  I doubt there is any political motivation involved.  As far as being losers, I think the company is quite successful.

Steel Beasts was firstly a game which evolved into a military product which is also available to civilians. The US military did not adopt Steel Beasts as a training product.

First there was SB Gold and then SB Pro

Regards
Logged


I stand against Racism, Bigotry and Bullying
johncage
Oberst
******
Posts: 206


« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2015, 02:43:47 AM »

i am talking about high fidelity art assets, both steel beast and combat mission have very outdated models. if you see the armored warfare models, they have far more details. 3d handles, little bumps, levers, even screws modeled.

the only issue they have is dimension, and sometimes they are lazy with details. but steel beast models cannot be compared. they are too low, too low detail.

it is a strange correlation. the higher fidelity, the more fantasy. i notice in games like arma 3, they have better models now, but all fantasy and sci fi.
Logged
Wiedzmin
Major
****
Posts: 77


« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2015, 07:33:35 AM »

I think Steal Beast is not that good in tank models. Also they only make playable the NATO tanks so this company is playing with politics goals. They are professionals losers!



i am talking about high fidelity art assets, both steel beast and combat mission have very outdated models. if you see the armored warfare models, they have far more details. 3d handles, little bumps, levers, even screws modeled.

the only issue they have is dimension, and sometimes they are lazy with details. but steel beast models cannot be compared. they are too low, too low detail.

it is a strange correlation. the higher fidelity, the more fantasy. i notice in games like arma 3, they have better models now, but all fantasy and sci fi.


"high fidelity art assets" they f-cked up whole model buy yaaaay they have screws(but they painted commander cupola vision blocks with green paint)  Grin


and more or less normal T-72(oh wow they have tow cable and AW doesn't have it  Grin)

if you don't understand how real T-72 look like, and how propper 3D model look like, than what is your point ?
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 07:55:11 AM by Wiedzmin » Logged
Chiquito
Hauptmann
***
Posts: 42


« Reply #43 on: December 04, 2015, 11:57:27 AM »

The video of the T-72. This version of the T-72 is the only playable Russian hardware that worth in Steal Beast. For your information, the T-72M1 is the Warsaw Pact T-72, not the Soviet version, wide different in performance. As all the Warsaw Pact countries are now in NATO side, they only made this T-72M1 export version, because this.

I don't like the Russian tanks models by SB, maybe because the very old graphic engine.
Logged
Wiedzmin
Major
****
Posts: 77


« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2015, 12:12:33 PM »

I don't like the Russian tanks models by SB, maybe because the very old graphic engine.
you may like or don't like models from SB, but they are more or less accurate, unlike of AW crappy models.
the T-72M1 is the Warsaw Pact T-72, not the Soviet version, wide different in performance.

for your information zero differences(especially in game terms) .
Logged
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 5589


Jerk developer


« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2015, 12:15:45 PM »

i am talking about high fidelity art assets, both steel beast and combat mission have very outdated models. if you see the armored warfare models, they have far more details. 3d handles, little bumps, levers, even screws modeled.
But they incorrectly modeled Smiley
What a sence in levers and screws if it misplaced?

May be better to do game with high fidelity fantasy tanks, even better with orcs and elves  with screws and bumps Grin
Logged

"Русские танки из-за нехватки снарядов сновали повсюду, стараясь раздавить наших солдат." (с) фантастические рассказы про Восточный фронт
chaudard
Oberst
******
Posts: 282


« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2015, 01:07:46 PM »

May be better to do game with high fidelity fantasy tanks, even better with orcs and elves  with screws and bumps Grin
Wargaming wanted to create an orcs and elves game, they finaly choose to make a game with tanks. Less competition and good market in Russia. I think we see that Graviteam was passionnate about tanks and made a far better game in term of quality. And they choose a very difficult market: simulators are less popular.

I would like more games like yours: warships, submarines, planes simulator... These games are abandoned by their developpers.
Logged
Tanker
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 1099

BRING BACK MARKERS


« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2015, 11:55:21 PM »

I think Steal Beast is not that good in tank models. Also they only make playable the NATO tanks so this company is playing with politics goals. They are professionals losers!
They marketed their program to the US military as a training aid.  They then adapted it for the game market.  Their emphasis would be on NATO equipment.  I doubt there is any political motivation involved.  As far as being losers, I think the company is quite successful.

Who care about what they really do for the military market. We are not in game to be manipulated, we are free. Honestly success for Steal Beast is not real

How are you being manipulated by SB?
Logged

Bring back 3D markers!
Tanker
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 1099

BRING BACK MARKERS


« Reply #48 on: December 04, 2015, 11:56:17 PM »

They marketed their program to the US military as a training aid.  They then adapted it for the game market.  Their emphasis would be on NATO equipment.  I doubt there is any political motivation involved.  As far as being losers, I think the company is quite successful.

Steel Beasts was firstly a game which evolved into a military product which is also available to civilians. The US military did not adopt Steel Beasts as a training product.

First there was SB Gold and then SB Pro

Regards


Thank you for that. 
Logged

Bring back 3D markers!
johncage
Oberst
******
Posts: 206


« Reply #49 on: December 05, 2015, 03:18:19 AM »

it's crazy. you'd think sb team would hire a graphics programmer or something.
Logged
33lima
Oberst
******
Posts: 265



« Reply #50 on: December 05, 2015, 11:09:40 AM »

IMHO Steel Beasts is an excellent illustration of the point that having adequate graphics rather than relatively minor 'eye candy' features can be very much more than compensated for by extreme fidelity to crew drills and the tactical handling of tanks and troops in combat, providing a sense of 'being there' that - in my experience - has seldom been equalled and never been exceeded, in any sim (despite US accents for all sides). And tho with no or basic interiors, several Soviet AFVs are playable. It's still arguably the Gold Standard for tanksims. As a tank sim, and very good though PE and SF are, only SABOW is really in the same league, with better graphics, better SP content and some other superior features.



Logged

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of his country!" when the guns begin to shoot!
'Tommy', Rudyard Kipling, 1892
whukid
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 1016



« Reply #51 on: December 05, 2015, 07:39:55 PM »

Personally I find the level of chaos that comes with SABOW combat to be rather accurate.
Logged

johncage
Oberst
******
Posts: 206


« Reply #52 on: December 11, 2015, 07:10:14 AM »

IMHO Steel Beasts is an excellent illustration of the point that having adequate graphics rather than relatively minor 'eye candy' features can be very much more than compensated for by extreme fidelity to crew drills and the tactical handling of tanks and troops in combat, providing a sense of 'being there' that - in my experience - has seldom been equalled and never been exceeded, in any sim (despite US accents for all sides). And tho with no or basic interiors, several Soviet AFVs are playable. It's still arguably the Gold Standard for tanksims. As a tank sim, and very good though PE and SF are, only SABOW is really in the same league, with better graphics, better SP content and some other superior features.

that's just sour grapes coping for that game having outdated graphics.

better graphics would benefit that game, period. nothing contributes more to the sense of being there, than having things that should be there represented visually.

Krabb: Overquote removed.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 12:24:53 PM by Krabb » Logged
Ghostrider
Leutnant
*
Posts: 1


« Reply #53 on: December 14, 2015, 02:46:09 PM »


that's just sour grapes coping for that game having outdated graphics.

better graphics would benefit that game, period. nothing contributes more to the sense of being there, than having things that should be there represented visually.

Graphics is being improved somewhat,  but  will never match, lets say, a SABOW level. There are certain constraints for this- requirements of .mil customers(who, for example, can not  gut containerized  training systems  every  year by swapping computers inside),  map size(which is  approximately 100x100km), quantity of units in mission scenario(up to couple Bn-sized TFs per side) and so on...
Logged
33lima
Oberst
******
Posts: 265



« Reply #54 on: December 15, 2015, 12:52:05 AM »

IMHO Steel Beasts is an excellent illustration of the point that having adequate graphics rather than relatively minor 'eye candy' features can be very much more than compensated for by extreme fidelity to crew drills and the tactical handling of tanks and troops in combat, providing a sense of 'being there' that - in my experience - has seldom been equalled and never been exceeded, in any sim (despite US accents for all sides). And tho with no or basic interiors, several Soviet AFVs are playable. It's still arguably the Gold Standard for tanksims. As a tank sim, and very good though PE and SF are, only SABOW is really in the same league, with better graphics, better SP content and some other superior features.


that's just sour grapes coping for that game having outdated graphics.

better graphics would benefit that game, period. nothing contributes more to the sense of being there, than having things that should be there represented visually.

Now, now. Don't presume you understand another's motivation, you have clearly no idea of mine. Ever heard the expression, de gustibus, nil est disputandum?  I also disagree with your assertion that 'nothing contributes more to the sense of being there, than having things that should be there represented visually', inasmuch as this are merely one of several important contributors. I find SB's current graphics quite acceptable, and the accuracy of their 3d models preferable to the 'beter graphics' but less accurate 3d models of AW. So do others.

Krabb: Overquote removed.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 12:25:17 PM by Krabb » Logged

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of his country!" when the guns begin to shoot!
'Tommy', Rudyard Kipling, 1892
Rich8
Oberleutnant
**
Posts: 7


« Reply #55 on: April 03, 2016, 09:33:46 AM »

T-72 or other Playable vehicle, I will be welcome.
In reality, T-64 may be more likely. Because of that section of T-64 video.
   



I absolutely agree, T-64 and maybe either M60A1 with AOS or M60A3, I'd love to see the A3 vs the T-64 on a European map with some good hills and forests...would be amazing.
We need hypothetical scenarios imo, just look at how few battle options there are in SABOW. The replay-ability is just so low. I'm two months into this sim, I really love it, but fighting only for sand in the M60 is really boring and the Battle Editor feels kinda dull.

TL;DR In my opinion next DLC should be T-64 vs M60A1(AOS) and/or M60A3 in Eastern Europe circa 1970s hypothetical scenario campaign :3
Would make good use of that snow weather Cheesy
Logged
Pulstar
Oberleutnant
**
Posts: 9


« Reply #56 on: July 28, 2016, 06:39:51 PM »

I will defo be back to SB after they (eventually) upgrade the terrain engine. The models themselves are pretty good.
Logged
johncage
Oberst
******
Posts: 206


« Reply #57 on: September 17, 2016, 05:36:02 AM »

amored warfare models now available. maybe some people can help edit the turret dimension to be more correct so we can help put this in the game:

http://p3dm.ru/files/7754_obt_t-72a-.html
http://p3dm.ru/files/7752_obt_t-72-ural-.html
http://p3dm.ru/files/7751_obt_t-64a-.html

it is possible and done before just see below pic, just need to make models accurate and authentic first.

Logged
Anddy
Major
****
Posts: 97


« Reply #58 on: September 17, 2016, 12:30:38 PM »

it is possible and done before just see below pic
Nice job! This tank is under AI control only or user may control it too?
Logged
johncage
Oberst
******
Posts: 206


« Reply #59 on: September 18, 2016, 03:33:47 AM »

player controllable, however many features missing due to lack of technical and modding knowledge. it was never released and is now lost. but i am confident, with our better understanding of modding, more demand for those types of vehicles, there is better chance to implement vehicle properly working
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!