Ssnake Vetoes VR

[Rinix]

http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/#comment-176968
I'm adjusting my wish list accordingly.

Well, I guess the relevant search term would be "Oculus".

In short, No, it won't happen.

• We cannot guarantee stable 90 frames per second
• Would be immersive, but not necessarily useful; sole exception: Vehicle commanders
• Requires rebuilding 3D vehicle interiors
• No discernible use in the training domain; if at all it would be an exclusive feature for the Personal Edition, and most likely a severe and misguided distraction from our "real" work. eSim Games, despite the name, is first and foremost a simulation based training company.

So - training value is the litmus test for all our development, then the cost vs effect ratio (very high, in this case). We give preference to what's most useful for mopst customers.

[Asid]

Seems contrary to what the majority of the industry is doing. Many of the developers have embraced VR.

I have read many articles on the value of VR, especially for training. This is especially so in the military.

Esim must have their reasons......

• No discernible use in the training domain; if at all it would be an exclusive feature for the Personal Edition, and most likely a severe and misguided distraction from our "real" work. eSim Games, despite the name, is first and foremost a simulation based training company.

Its great for Esims to reiterate what they think about the PE customers 

[Rinix]

Yep, just further proof that eSim Games sees anything for the civilian enthusiast market as "a severe and misguided distraction from our "real" work." The OP that Ssnake was responding to mentioned that there had been some VR work done with Steel Beasts. I think he was referring to this: http://vira.design/index.php/portfolio/82-interactive-spaces/181-steel-beasts
So:

• Why did eSim Games even take this project to completion, since the technical problems would have become evident well before completion?
• Why did Ssnake have no difficulty with VR at I/ITSEC 2016? http://exhibits.iitsec.org/2016/public/eBooth.aspx?IndexInList=16&FromPage=Exhibitors.aspx&ParentBoothID=&ListByBooth=true&BoothID=162173
• Why would VR require rebuilding any 3D model?
• Did Ssnake just not want to get shown up by a developer with better graphics?

[Asid]

Esims is a small team. They are focused on their professional contracts. They have always said that the PE market is secondary. We have always been told that we are lucky to get the PE version. This annoys many people who pay $125 for the sim and then $40 upgrades........ If the PE market and financial rewards were that bad then Esims would stop the PE segment........

One of the benefits to the PE use is that sometimes content can filter down to us from the professional contracts. Maybe it helps them "keep the lights on".

As for VR. We all know that a high FPS is required. SB in its current form cannot get near those FPS targets. The engine is very old. Disappointing but true.

Esims did add Trackir support but that has received a mixed reception due to the way it is implemented.

[Rinix]

http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/#comment-177175
Now Ssnake decides that the status quo has no reason to it.

I don't see a reason to be glad that SB isn't moving towards VR (yet?), as long as it would remain optional.

[Rinix]

http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/#comment-177187
The Steel Beasts community in a nutshell:

As Ssnake said: it won't happen.   He may change his mind one day, but I think that time is still several years away. Many years, most likely. If ever.

Just saying. Just to motivate you to control your enthusiasm. eSim is no game developer, the focus and contract obligations that really pay for their bills demand them to set different priorities.

Small expectations - small disappointments. Big expectations - big disappointments. No expectations - no disappointments: just the cozy feeling of having been right.

[Rinix]

http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/#comment-177229
Gibson is full of it, for the following reasons:

• First he goes on and on about how they only use Steel Beasts for plan training, then whines about how many VR sets they'd have to buy.
• The life cycle issue is overblown. Computer hardware today lasts and lasts. Intel CPUs from 2011 are still going strong today. Graphics cards from years ago are still putting up decent FPS.
• Why soldiers would have to buy their own VR headsets when they could be issued them for use anywhere is beyond me.

[Rinix]

http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?tab=comments#comment-177713

1. The Rift has 1080 x 1200 per eye (in sum 2160 x 1200). It's just a few years ago that i played on a 22' tft with 1280 x1024. So if your theory is true than simgaming wasn't possible then.
2. The cv1-version of the rift is the first consumer version. Cv2 with a much higher resolution will come in 2019 maybe earlier. From my point of view: If you want to prepare your software for that "revolution" then you have to make strategic decisions NOW.
3. The benefit of it all? Well, not on the tactical side (for that i'm playing a lot of "ugly" looking 2d hex-based wargames and have a lot of fun). But on the sim side: Immersion and the look (and feel) of beeing inside a tank and manage the systems would be a complete different story.
4. I played DCS since its first module. On my opinion VR is/will be a sim-gamechanger.

[Rinix]

http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?tab=comments#comment-177733

Access violation in basic logic module, Error 101:

• The Rift displays a horizontal field of view of about 160° where on the standard monitor Steel Beasts would use about 100°.
• Next, you must not simply add the two horizontal displays' resolution - because you're rendering a stereoscopic view. That means, BOTH displays need to cover 160° FoV with their 1200 pixels.
• Therefore each pixel in a Rift subtends an angle of 160°:1200px = 0.1333° per pixel (horizontally)
• On your CRT example we have 100°:1280px = 0.0781° per pixel (horizontally)!

That means: The same target may be 1.7 times farther away on the classic monitor before it shrinks to below pixel size, which is the detection range limit. The same ratio applies to identification range of course. The upside is that the Rift offers a wider field of view, which can be beneficial wherever peripheral vision is more important for maintaining situational awareness than detection range (e.g. urban combat, racing games). But this is a rather marginal benefit compared to the massive development effort to turn a conventional game into a VR title (just look at Skyrim VR during combat to realize that there's way more to VRification than "just" maintaining a high frame rate and adapting all the artwork (which in itself is already a substantial undertaking).

[Rinix]

Some more support for VR:
http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?tab=comments#comment-178218
http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-178219

Ssnake responds: http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-178223

You may not have been referring to me specifically; I certainly didn't "bash" VR, and I don't think it's an appropriate characterization of this thread's tone, so please dial back a bit on the escalating rhetoric. VR isn't an option for Steel Beasts in the near future, and there are profound reasons or at least points of consideration why it may not even be in the medium to long-term perspective.
I'm not convinced that it addresses an important deficit in the current UI concept. At the same time I have to fundamentally reject any implication that converting an existing game to VR is a more or less simple task, and that the lack of enthusiasm on our part is therefore proof of us "hating it". So I'm asking whether it's "worth it", and we may disagree about the added value. That it would make Steel Beasts "cooler" I might agree with. At the moment I still don't think it'd be worth it because I'm looking at the quite substantial effort that would be required to make it work, and I'm looking at all the things that I couldn't do if I were to divert development priorities to VR support.

We only have limited resources and therefore must choose wisely which projects to pursue.

[Rinix]

http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-178241

I think you are greatly overrecting to my very general statment not aimed at anyone in particular except maybe the users who keep trying to tell others 'vr sucks or is not yet mature enough technology  for gaming . It's no different than what some others are saying.  There is nothing for me to tone down. There is no aggessive rhetoric.

[Asid]

Esims SB engine is already struggling without VR. Like I said before, VR is the future in many situations. The majority of similar developers provide or are going to provide VR.

It is what it is.

[Wax Savage]

Hello Rinix, Asid and company…

I read the entire thread you’ve created on this subject. I certainly can agree that it would be cool to have my favorite tank sim VR headset capable.

In defense of Ssnake and eSim Games we must remember SB is a commercial product. The simulation just happens to cross over to consumer use.

Think of the sim as a 6x6 military truck; purpose built to meet Mil Specs but, can be operated by a civilian. I sure wouldn’t expect GM or Ford’s Military Division to put tinted glass in a “6-by” because some civilians thought it would be cool.

SB is the only software that is a true, accurate armored operations simulation. Other software may look better visually, may offer VR capability, etc., but SB will teach you to operate the vehicle systems best. We all knew what we were buying when we put our money down.

Let’s not forget that out of the needs of the military much of the advances in medicine and technology have been created.  If eSim’s military customers want VR enough to meet the price for VR compatibility, we’ll have it PDQ.

I do not feel that I am second-class client to eSim. I do however, feel lucky to be a segment that has been allowed access to experience what the big boys are training on.
regards,

Wax   

[Asid]

Hi Wax

The majority of similar developers have integrated VR into their products. There are various papers and posts around the internet which are not from "gamers" explaining the great benefits of VR in their applications. It has been reported that VR has increased the immersion and realism factors which trainees experience which benefits the user and the training programme. Products like Virtual Battle Space (VBS) have many modules and pieces of equipment which interface to the pc and use VR. VBS is not available to the public for gaming. VBS has many customers in many countries. Most of their products are not advertised as they are for specific military customers.

Concerning Esims implementation of VR, it could be argued that it is not required. Why? This is because the majority of Esims customers use the product as a training/procedural tool. They have custom built containers with crew positions. This is a good representation of the real thing.

I do not feel that I am second-class client to eSim. I do however, feel lucky to be a segment that has been allowed access to experience what the big boys are training on.

Esims have said many times that the public customers (PE version) are secondary. They have said many times that it is the military (primary) customers who pay the bills. They have never made a secret of this fact. It is their business and their choice. However we (PE customers) do pay quite a lot of money for our version. It should be a two way thing. We should not be expected to feel unbelievably grateful that we are allowed to purchase the software.

SB Pro is a great piece of software. The engine is old and the company has to balance its resources, customer requirements and expectations.

Regards

[Wax Savage]

Hi Asid,

Yes, what you say about the benefits of the VR headset is certainly true. The inevitable propagation of the VR display will reach into much of education and entertainment.
To remain viable, eSim WILL go there, eventually. Per eSim’s explanation of their business model, the military will need to require it. That could take years.

We’re both aware once the military has bought something they tend to hold on to it (look at the B-52 bomber). It’s the cost-benefit that keeps something around.
Civilian business moves much faster. We throw things up on the trash heap just to chase the new thing. ‘New’ excites us. It is its own adrenaline rush and, we’re willing to pay money to get that rush.

"... It should be a two way thing. We should not be expected to feel unbelievably grateful that we are allowed to purchase the software.
SB Pro is a great piece of software. The engine is old and the company has to balance its resources, customer requirements and expectations."

125 $US is pricy when compared to ‘games’ but, that’s comparing apples and oranges. Actually, I’m surprised the cost for SBpro_PE has not increased since 2006.

Here is a quote from Ssnake in 2006…
"Steel Beasts Pro PE is very mature software. Unlike normal games however, continuous evolutionary development and a much longer product lifetime with support and upgrades is part of the concept. As we are adding features for army customers, we will be making them available in the Personal Edition as well. "(Ssnake, technical director eSim)

That is pretty plain statement, to me.
Ssnake states eSim sold its product to the military with the assurance that the product would be evolutionary with a long product lifetime (that’s the B-52 concept. The military likes that).

BTW, I DO feel it is a two way thing. All of us PE customers do have unheard of access to top management. 

See you in the field..
Wax