Steel Beasts 5.0 Thread

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/17411-german-afvs/#comment-238368
Later, Ssnake confirms that he is talking about version 5.0.

The Milan on Marder ... it's complicated. I decided that we'd postpone that development until we have a code base that's more flexible. The SB V1 ...V4 code architecture was devised when we had little idea in which direction Steel Beasts would develop, and for how long. After we made the decision to enter the military training market (2002) I had always hoped for a 25+ year future, but it was very uncertain. Now that we can be relatively certain about the market in which we're operating, we are developing a new code architecture that will ensure that this software can be developed for decades to come, giving us more flexibility and ease of code maintenance at the same time, and certain performance bonuses.

Hopefully, that will then also free up the time for small side jobs such as adding a dismountable missile launcher half of the vehicles in a platoon - which currently would be a big side job.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/4546-steel-beasts-content-wish-list/page/338/#comment-238696

You are right, in the current code base such a "reverse search" is impossible to do. I'll try and make sure than in the new architecture this will be made possible.

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/4546-steel-beasts-content-wish-list/page/338/#comment-238698

Ah.
Referring to party colors by one letter may not be the most reliable identifier, I'm afraid. Space constraints being the next impediment. Localization may eliminate the difference in first letter between (E)vent, (C)ondition, (T)rigger, etc.

Rather, I'd like to have something more luxurious in the future (=V5), e.g. you click on any such entry and it'll pop up a window with the option to directly inspect the condition, possibly marking it for change after the end of the test mode. Or have a mouse-over to create a help bubble that describes what it is/shows the name. Or something else entirely. This will be part of our user interface redevelopment project.

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/4546-steel-beasts-content-wish-list/page/338/#comment-238700

Of course, these are all just immature, brainstorming-quality ideas. Whether this will actually be implemented and when, I can't say at this point. But we want to implement the new GUI framework so that GUI changes will be much easier than they are right now, and while we're doing that I want to remove as many restrictions that we identified with the old code as we can to regain flexibility - including copy & paste throughout the whole user interface without the quirky workarounds or selective implementations. When the original GUI was made, we simply didn't think of the full implications if Steel Beasts would remain in uninterrupted use for 30+ years.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/4546-steel-beasts-content-wish-list/page/338/#comment-238734

I suspect that this is a case where we "invent" a dismount unit that's actually the vehicle commander, so in that sense we're technically not dealing with a duplicate ID. That said, V5 is all about getting rid of these hacks and organize things properly rather than squeezing functions from the last bit available in unit status bytes.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/17447-ai-collision-avoidance/#comment-238875

Summary:
Is there some way to ensure Blue has priority over Green on roads?

No.
I understand why one would be interested in this and see the justification for such a feature; alas, it's not a feature and unlikely to become one in version 4. Version 5, I see at least the potential to implement this, it's then a question of development priorities.
Advice for the moment is, reduce the amount of Green traffic on the critical routes, re-route Blue to secondary roads which are less likely to be taken by Green traffic.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/17439-breaking-basrah-operation-telic-map-still-in-the-making/#comment-238932

In my day job there is always a drive for the rapid generation of synthetic terrains for both virtual and constructive simulations, including the support to live training through synthetic wrap.  There must be a better way of generating.

There are, and we're working on them.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/17439-breaking-basrah-operation-telic-map-still-in-the-making/#comment-238966

...
Lots of commonality in the experience.

Everything from seeing if your models are in the Joint Training Data Services (JTDS), to entity enumeration, to DIS / HLA, to common terrain databases, to the various network connectivity issues, ...

But most who come to me seem to think its just a case of joining a "World of Tanks" server.

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/17439-breaking-basrah-operation-telic-map-still-in-the-making/#comment-238970

If it is of any consolation, we're working on all those aspects, or have certain ideas how to tackle them. In V5.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/55-we-love-screenshots/page/140/#comment-239133
Ssnake is talking about repairing and re-crewing captured vehicles:

Not an option in V4. V5 will use a different approach for a number of reasons, this being one of them.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/17505-t-72-crewable-with-damaged-crew/#comment-239535
Volcano is talking about being a player being ejected from a crew member view if the crew member that the player is currently in is killed:

Yeah maybe in 5.0, one day, we just create some all new purgatory type position for people to be ejected to. They don't have access to 3D view, they aren't technically anywhere, but they are sent to the map view.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/17526-m10-booker/#comment-239817
"engive" should be "engine".

Introducing new tanks isn't a priority right now. We do this where military customers need something for their training. But the focus is on developing the engive for version 5, which will keep us occupied for a while.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/17530-what-can-be-done-with-surrendering-infantry/#comment-239879

The problem lies in that units (and equipment) in Steel Beasts (V4 and older) belongs to parties, and can't change them. So there's no way how you can actually make icons of such units appear on your screen, to give them orders, etc.
A more fundamental change to data structures is needed (one more reason why we're working on V5).

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/4546-steel-beasts-content-wish-list/page/339/#comment-239905

Under the current engine vehicle crews are treated as a vehicle component. Therefore, dismounting them, no matter the circumstances, is not possible. One more reason why we're focusing on V5 development.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/4546-steel-beasts-content-wish-list/page/340/#comment-239976

You're not alone, but in the V4 engine we can have but one gunner per vehicle. Loader on MG = 2nd gunner, so ... one more reason for V5 development.

[Rinix]

Ssnake confirms that camouflage will become possible with version 5.0: https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/4546-steel-beasts-content-wish-list/page/341/#comment-240238

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/17590-ammo-changing-from-tank-commander/#comment-240516

I'll try to keep it in mind, however, to implement some "medium-term memory" for AI crews in V5, so that they won't forget immediately what they were ordered to do; provided, that we can ascertain the player's intent, which to a computer often appears erratic.

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/17602-editing-faction-experience/#comment-240609

My position has always been that it makes little sense to make AI crews artificially incompetent as long as we can't make them as good as humans are. Ideally, AI crews would have to show the same weaknesses and strengths as the human behavioral spectrum, and I think there are ways to approximate that - but not in SB Pro V4.

[Rinix]

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/4546-steel-beasts-content-wish-list/page/342/#comment-240726

I know you don't generally like to discuss unreleased features, but can you give us some sort of rough idea of what level of terrain improvements are coming in V5 ?

https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/4546-steel-beasts-content-wish-list/page/342/#comment-240735

Variable resolution, mostly. This can help where a lot of features are in close proximity, like a tight road turn in a mountain village where all buildings are very close to the street. Or railroad tracks running parallel to a road, and a river.

The main issue aren't "moar terrain features" but a better way to organize things, so we can concentrate more on other feature developments rather than grinding through a lot of code maintenance work.