Steel Beasts 5.0 Thread

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/14852-list-of-system-requirements-for-a-laptop-that-can-play-sb-with-average-40-fps-and-that-for-the-next-5-years/?tab=comments#comment-214240

It'll get better with the next "major major" release (in the sense that it's too early to say when exactly it'll be ready for the general public, so there may still be 4.x releases that I'd rate as (just) "major").

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/14963-challenger-3-ordered/?tab=comments#comment-215299
I don't know if anti-tank UAVs will come in Steel Beasts 5.0, but it is certain that they will be added to Steel Beasts.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/15014-object-size-and-ai-detection/?tab=comments#comment-215759
Hedgehog also mentioned "I hope the ideas I am suggesting make it into Ver 5.127 (or sooner, but happy with later.)", but I doubt that he meant this as an actual version number for Steel Beasts.

Target prioritization is a notoriously difficult topic. I think that most of the time the AI vehicle commander is relatively competent. But of course, the few cases where he acts really stupid are the memorable ones. As there is no perfect formula that can consider the perfect solution for every possible constellation of target arrays - a complete enumeration would create about a fantastillion permutations, probably more - we have to rely on heuristics, rules of thumb, applied by brain-dead zombies.

If it is of any consolation, we'll try a new approach in version 5. I can't promise a solution in version 4.x

[Frankie]

I've been away from Steelbeasts for sometime now since Version SBProPE-4.167. What's the current hot potato, Elephant In the Room, or current spiciest topic/issue now about SteelBeasts? Please someone don't say "Bug fixes".

[Rinix]

The most important issue is that the latest version is 4.259. It's a free update for everyone who has a license for Steel Beasts 4.1. Its lighting has been further improved.

[Frankie]

Steel Beasts Pro PE 4.259 installed and running on my Dell laptop!
 

Installed, lock and loaded. Nice terrain detail and lighting.

I can achieve 45++ to 33++ fps framerates only with the graphics/terrain set to the minimal settings. But since my Dell laptop is from 2016, I am not complaining and am happy as a clam.

I feel that the mission load times have significantly been improved (less waiting time).

Cheers
Frankie Kam

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/15076-i-have-an-idea-for-the-game-steel-beasts-pro-pe-version-42/?tab=comments#comment-216315
Very interesting:

Would require the cooperation of the Israeli Army, which is notoriously secretive (and I'm not very optimistic that this will change anytime soon, or that they'd make an exception for us). I'd like to have a playable Merkava in Steel Beasts as much as the next guy with a passion for armored combat vehicles, but even if we would create one with a speculative (and thus largely wrong) fire control system for first person usage it would require us to devote substantial development time which, right now, is absorbed by the development of a new render engine, a new graphical user interface, a new sound engine, and the associated integration tasks.

So, it will take a good while before we may find the time to follow our passion again. Right now, it's a time of necessities.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/4546-steel-beasts-content-wish-list/page/293/?tab=comments#comment-216338

The current implementation of the AVEPS vehicle protection system is freaking outstanding.  But let me ask, can we get some more variants of this implemented based on simply modifying what conditions will trigger the current AVEPS system we already have?

It's our prototype for other launcher based active protection systems which, once implemented, will receive different characteristics.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/15080-is-this-relevant-to-sb/?tab=comments#comment-216352

Right now I don't think that it makes a lot of sense for us simply because the GUI isn't made for resolutions above FullHD, and FSR seems to gain performance by rendering at a lower resolution, and then to upscale the image with sharpening. Which is a clever way to handle 3D scenes and "punch above your weight" as a graphics card, but only if we're talking about 4K resolutions and the like.
As long as Steel Beasts doesn't scale text elements in the GUI, anything about 1920x1080 is going to be painful in any case. Likewise, scaling gun sight reticules doesn't sound like a terribly brilliant idea, so that might be another not entirely trivial problem to solve.

That being said, I have utmost confidence in our programmer team to look at any solution that promises performance gains. And as soon as we have the new GUI framework in place we can then consider support for 4K and higher resolutions.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/15139-good-scenarios-for-plain-old-tank-jockeys/?tab=comments#comment-217001

For version 5, we're planning to add integrated filter tools to help you search for certain categories of scenarios much quicker.
Of course, automated scenario scanning can do only so much, if the forces you control gradually expand with events, or if they depend on random variables.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/15181-only-map-makers-can-truly-know-pain/?tab=comments#comment-217598

I went through this once, when there were neither line nor fill tools.
The version 5 map editor will make much simpler for all of you, promise. Up until now its purpose was to touch up an existing map, not to create them all by hand. You import map features first, then do a bit of nip and tuck. That at least was the intention. It's like if the only tool you have is sand paper, and you're supposed to create the "David" statue from a large block of marble, with no hammer and no chisels.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/15210-sb-pro-performance-and-cpu-cores/?tab=comments#comment-217988

More cores help to reduce scenario load times. Here we're parallelizing as much as possible (also with legacy map conversion, which however isn't the typical use profile). Also, certain tasks (such as simulating the vehicle suspension, HE/frag grenade terminal ballistics) always run in separate threads.

SBPro version 5 will use parallelization much more aggressively, but is still a good while ahead. My new PC has a 16 core CPU, just so you know what my own expectations are.

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/15210-sb-pro-performance-and-cpu-cores/?tab=comments#comment-217997
The CPU that is used by the person that Ssnake is responding to is an i9-11900K.

Well, I purchased the 16 core to be able to fully test the more extreme parallelization cases, which will probably be used to scale up certain details (of increasingly less relevance), not necessarily to "run faster". FEX, we might be able to trace more individual fragments with HE detonation events if more cores are present, but since we're going from high mass to low tracing the smaller fragments will yield only minor (and at some point vanishing) improvements in fidelity. Or, to test out a server function hosting multiple sessions, something of relevance probably only for military customers. So, I don't think at all that you made "a bad choice". Your new CPU should serve you well for years to come.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/15210-sb-pro-performance-and-cpu-cores/?tab=comments#comment-218006

We do want to take advantage of the latest generations of GPUs with version 5, if they are available, to enable actual and significant performance boosts with the new architecture. But at the same time I think we will still want to make sure that the higher tiers of older generations of graphics cards (such as the GTX1070) will still perform well.
The RTX3000 series is impressive as hell I must confess; it's a shame that it is so well suited for crypto currency generation that these miners ruin the entire market for gamers. At recommended retail price levels I'd buy one in a heartbeat. At the same time we can hold out with our older cards until this storm has blown over, so I'm not too worried about the situation, just, admittedly, annoyed.

I'm not particularly comfortable talking about our plans (even if we are already working at them rather than just blowing pipe smoke). Everything that we do must adapt to the conditions of our work (finances, time, and manpower available), and these conditions change over time. So, they are not promises of a certain future performance, or specific feature sets. They are the general direction into which we're heading, and we'll see how far we come. There's still a number of "known unknown" issues that will have an effect on final performance and schedule, AI being one of them.  Then again, looking back at the road already behind us, I suppose we could have done much worse, so I remain optimistic about what we can achieve in the next years.

In any case, like I wrote, the formula "more cores=more fragments" is going to offer diminishing returns (and it is but a single example of the kind of scaling that we have in mind), and 4...8 cores should deliver good performance for years to come. Likewise, 8...16 GByte of RAM is the "comfort zone" that I wouldn't want to leave unless there was dire need. There'll be increasing need for storage space for maps and graphics textures, but then again many games these days already want 40...80 GBytes of harddisk, so we're still well below that margin.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11211-ui-scaling-for-uhd/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-218584

Version 5 will come with a new GUI middleware, and as a result, better options for adapting it to high screen resolutions. But it's still a good way out. One does not simply walk into Legacy Code land to replace the GUI, as a software developer legend once said, in a galaxy far, far away.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/4546-steel-beasts-content-wish-list/page/296/?tab=comments#comment-218901

We'll concentrate on developing the new engine and converting existing artwork first.  That's the big one. Once that that is out of the way, I expect to shift our attention towards more atmospheric/environmental elements.