Steel Beasts 5.0 Thread

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/15357-im-back-after-a-long-break/?tab=comments#comment-220227

I guess you last checked with version 4.0
The performance there wasn't great - the death from a thousand paper cuts.
Like I wrote back in 2016, we knew what had to be done about it, but fixing it took until 2019 with 4.1, where we had numerous improvements in a lot of places, all of which gave us 1% more framerate here, 2% more there, sometimes just half a percent - but with enough of these fixes, eventually we could pull ourselves from the swamp.

Then again, we have pretty much exhausted all potential for optimization with the current engine. To make true progress with higher detail levels in maps, supporting more units, bigger maps, the current engine simply won't cut it. That's why we're working on 5.0, but that one breaks with a lot of old design concepts (how could it be any different), so it's really a major undertaking that will keep us busy for a good while.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/55-we-love-screenshots/page/129/?tab=comments#comment-220413

35 mm KETF ... the Dutch requirement to have a high probability of knocking out every optic of a T-80U MBT with a single salvo.
... i still haven't seen it work like that in SB yet

Yes, it's a limitation of the current engine as far as tank components are concerned (yet another reason to work on 5.0).

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/15380-4268-bradley-commanders-external-gunsight-lags-visually-behind-gun-movements/?tab=comments#comment-220595
He's talking about the Bradley's 3D model.

It's scheduled for a facelift, but "facelifting" actually means to develop the model completely anew. For that we need an opening in the regular artwork development pipeline. So, not in 4.3 ... but it will be done.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/4546-steel-beasts-content-wish-list/page/298/#comment-220765

There will be map layers, in version 5.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/4546-steel-beasts-content-wish-list/page/299/#comment-221036

The artillery system is scheduled for major changes. They won't make it into version 4.3 - too much needs to be changed to make that a "safe" feature addition at this point - but for whatever it's worth, we're working on it. It touches internal messages and processes in the code, the user interface, network messages ... in short, it's pretty "hairy code" with connections going to many places, all of which need to be redesigned. But, in the end we'll have artillery that's going to work well even in mountaineous terrain, when firing from uneven ground, possibly with ordered high/low trajectories, and all from a standardized user interface with dialogs closer to real life call for fire procedures (that can then be tailored to the specific national demands of the different customers that we have).

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/15420-4268-routes-for-vehicles-getting-them-to-stick-to-the-roads/page/2/#comment-221229

Part of my aim for this is to settle an internal concern that I have that extra detail results in maps that the AI has issues with. Part of me loves the detail, part of me thinks detail = clutter = troubles for the AI.

That concern isn't unfounded. But it's probably solvable, if we can at least address the most frequently observed issues. And if we can't solve it in version 4, then maybe we need different approaches to pathfinding in version 5. Either way, we can learn from it, and I'm determined to make high-detail maps work. Otherwise the whole new terrain engine effort would have to be chalked off as a complete waste.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/4546-steel-beasts-content-wish-list/page/302/#comment-222137

A new engine is in the works. It's too early to say what will be technically feasible (and at what price, as far as computing hardware and development effort are concerned) ... but of course we don't change engines just to keep things exactly the way they are. At the same time, as long as we're working on laying the foundation of coming work, we can't keep the feature mill cranking in high gear.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/15494-something-wrong-with-my-4268/#comment-222491

As mentioned in other posts, once that the visibility limit exceeds 14,000m, certain render anomalies will occur. In this case, a quirk in the render engine that obstructs an ever growing part of the scene being rendered in four directions so that when looking in a specific direction much of the landscape disappears. It's a small angle at 14,000m, but pretty large at 18,000m, so we don't advise going beyond 14km.
I no longer remember the specific reason for it. "It's always been like that" was one statement from the programmers - and (since that doesn't excuse anything), "No, it's not easy to fix this, I tried." the other. I then made the decision to not pursue this topic because we have bigger fish to fry, and I expect that no such anomalies will occur with version five.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/4546-steel-beasts-content-wish-list/page/306/#comment-223507

Well, there were some probing questions, in all fairness. And in our simulator projects, some loader's places have been enabled, but typically without 3D visual representation, and they require no AI for the place.
If as a human player you not only want to look out of the hatch and observe, but also operate the AA MG, possibly also service the coax MG and do some pointless click action to load the gun, that requires a disproportionate amount of effort to replicate the capabilities in the absence of a human player. And keeping things how they are except when human players occupy the position, gibing human tanks extra capabilities, goes fully against all the design principles that I tried to establish in Steel Beasts.

In version 5 we may reevaluate some of the fundamental design assumptions, and as a consequence we might then also get the capability to have a more versatile (AI) loader that could be substituted by a human if so desired. But the thought of all the crew animation that go along with this do not fill me with appreciative joy, I must confess.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/4546-steel-beasts-content-wish-list/page/307/#comment-223577
Based on this post, I'm guessing that we won't see version 5.0 for 2 to 3 years.

Okay, Fool's day is here, can we please put the topic to rest now?
I don't think how I could express myself any clearer, it's not going to happen anytime in the next two or three years.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/13961-about-further-modification-of-steel-beasts-pro-pe/#comment-223824

Well, with version 5 we're working on a new engine, and of course we want to take as much advantage from new technologies as we can. (Rewriting the existing engine to accommodate new frameworks would have cost at least as much work while getting less performance out of it, so it was no serious alternative (in case you were wondering).)

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/4546-steel-beasts-content-wish-list/page/310/#comment-225350

The problem is,
a. screen space. A COY task force can have a lot of callsigns that need to be organized in a way that you can access them easily, but also without blotching out the whole screen.
b. line of sight. How do you give, in a GUI, the command to flank an enemy that you know to be in a certain place, but you can't see?
It's easy to give a verbal command to that effect, but it's quite another to design a GUI that might allow you such a thing.

Whatever we can think of, at the end of the day this will require the development of an entirely different GUI concept, which is what we're doing for version 5.

In the meantime, the map is the primary command interface at the company level and beyond.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/15846-very-dumb-question-from-someone-who-has-been-playing-on-and-off-since-2015-regarding-newer-vehiclesammo-types/#comment-225766

No immediate plans for the Abrams family. The US Army isn't as good as a customer as one might hope for, so maintaining that line is one of the tasks that we have to squeeze into the rather narrow gaps of our general workplan.
To say it bluntly, our priority is work on the new engine. Everything else is a distraction from the important task; some of these distractions are necessary or mandatory (but they are distractions nevertheless).

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/15856-loose-ends/#comment-225831

The new engine, however, would allow to have more than two coaxial weapons (say, one 100mm gun, a 30mm autocannon, and a 7.62mm coaxial MG, to give a completely random example). Or to have more than one gunner on a vehicle, where one would mount some AA MG. That's among the reasons why we're making the rather painful effort.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/15856-loose-ends/#comment-225866

Not in this update; 4.3 continues to use the (heavily modified, lighting-improved, high-res terrain-enabled) Viper Engine that we adapted with version 3.0. So all this talk here is about version 5.0 and beyond. It's quite likely that there will be a Version 4.5 and/or 4.8 release before 5.0 is in a shape and form that it's suitable to replace the existing SB Pro PE.

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/15856-loose-ends/#comment-225873

Depends on your definition of "distant", but yes, it's definitely not "around the corner". It can't be. If we want to get rid of parts of the legacy code that impede further development - there are some - and if those parts needing replacement have deep roots that touch all parts of the rest of the code (they do), then you can't just replace the render engine and call it a day. The UI middleware needs to be replaced (well, "a UI middleware needs to be added" in the first place). The render engine needs to be replaced (DirectX 9 will be discontinued eventually, and doesn't allow the performance boosts that we want to achieve). AI code needs to be re-written from ground up. And then, every (combat) vehicle we have in SB Pro needs to be converted in code and in scripts. Often, that will go along with a 3D artwork facelift. These are the four major dragons that we must slay. It's doable, but it's not trivial. And in the meantime our customers still expect updates and a functional Steel Beasts for training or entertainment.

[Rinix]

DirectX 11 confirmed for version 5.0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9ON9V3pgcc&lc=Ugz7CqNJuMTfnYBsSSt4AaABAg