Dogs Of War Vu
Sim/Strategy/War => Steel Beasts Pro => Topic started by: Rinix on December 01, 2017, 03:01:35 AM
-
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.
-
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 :whistle
-
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?
-
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.
-
http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/#comment-177175
Now Ssnake decides that the status quo has no reason to it. :crazy
I don't see a reason to be glad that SB isn't moving towards VR (yet?), as long as it would remain optional.
-
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. :D
-
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 (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/76333-i7-2600k-vs-i7-8700k-upgrading-worthwhile-16.html). Graphics cards from years ago are still putting up decent FPS (https://www.techspot.com/article/1191-nvidia-geforce-six-generations-tested/).
- Why soldiers would have to buy their own VR headsets when they could be issued them for use anywhere is beyond me.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Hi Wax
Per eSim’s explanation of their business model, the military will need to require it. That could take years.
If you do some research you will see that the military are very onboard with VR and using it right now. As I said earlier, This might not necessary be the requirements of Esims customers.
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
I have software which costs a lot more than SB Pro. Yet thise companies approach customers differently.
SB Pro has paid updates. In fact some bug fixes you would have to pay for because they are bundled in a paid update.
BTW, I DO feel it is a two way thing. All of us PE customers do have unheard of access to top management.
My experience and that of others is somewhat different.
I like SB Pro. I enjoy playing it. I accept its limitations and just get on with it.
I hope to play another mp session with you soon :thumbsup
Regards
-
http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-180203
I think we should refrain from attacking personal opinions that way.
Also, I think that streakeagle is right. In the long run people will move towards an image quality that matches or exceeds what you can currently get from desktop monitors (why settle for anything less, if it were available). There is an unbroken trend in desktop computing and entertainment electronics to drive up screen resolutions. Those of us old enough to remember the first days of personal computing may also remember 12" greenscale monitors in TV resolution at best, often just a quarter of that. That was merely 40 years ago. It doesn't sound entirely unreasonable to expect stereoscopic displays at 8K in 20 years. And the inherent logic why this is actually necessary from a functional point of view is an opinion that I share as well.
http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-180220
Note that Streakeagle didn't say anywhere in his post anything about the timeline, and certainly not that he'd expect it "now". That's all something that you apparently read into it. The argument that in a flight sim he can't read the gauges properly is valid, likewise you can see in DCS videos a lot of rather extreme zooming (HUD or general orientation) where in reality the pilot would always have the same FOV. And that is because the human eye's resolution is so high (actually, it's variable - very high near the center view, not so much for peripheral vision, but since our focus can dart anywhere as far as eye movement allows, a display system would either have to render dynamically with eye tracking, or render constantly at a resolution that approximates the retina, with a field of view that approximates the human eye).
I think we're all on the same page that current technology simply can't deliver that.
Maybe we'll never get there because it'd be total overkill for anything that is NOT VR, and maybe VR is never going to make it into the average people's households so that there won't be a commercially viable path towards developing the necessary technology. Who knows. But that doesn't mean that the underlying arguments are invalid.
Well, my two cents. I'll leave it at that.
http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-180227
I'm still not convinced that VR has much of a market potential beyond the enthusiasts. The headset manufacturers are pumping titles into the market to ensure that their customers have sufficient content, and I never debated the value of VR for a racing game or a flight simulation in general, particularly in dogfights or for those who just enjoy flying around in a beautiful landscape.
But look at the most popular game type - first person shooter - you can't do it because it literally makes people sick within minutes. So game developers are trying to find game designs where your visual frame of reference doesn't change, or change rather slowly. And while I have no doubt that there will be some clever games to incorporate that limitation into their design, I'm not yet convinced that the mass-market breakthrough (=tens of millions of headsets sold) will come from the gaming market. Maybe as a substitute for home cinema, once that headsets become as lightweight and convenient to use as normal glasses (not seeing that happening anytime soon).
Everybody was convinced that video telephony would be the future, soon, from the 1930s to the 1980s, but it took the combination of Skype and smartphones for an actual mass-market breakthrough. The technology was, sorta-kinda there since the 1960s but it took another four decades to find the right formula.
It's similar with 3D cinema - stereoscopic anaglyph films are around since the 1950s but the first film that actually was a large scale box office success was Avatar. And to be honest, I am yet waiting for a second film that does 3D as well. [Old man rant] Sure, pretty much all films are now released as 3D in the theaters, but we're not really given much of a choice here. If you want to see a film on widescreen, there's only one way to see it. Otherwise watch it in hall six please, in enlarged TV format, the early afternoon screening. When I go to the cinemas these days (and I used to love that), I begrudgingly tolerate being forced to wear 3D glasses but I can't say I enjoy the forced rollercoaster scenes that I know are only there as a token scene to justify why the whole pice was shot in 3D (when we all know it is because it increases box office revenues by 30%). I'm pretty sure, if the choice whether to shoot a film in 2D or 3D was left to the directors, and if the decision was made purely on artistic merit we would hardly see any 3D movies.[/Old man rant]
So, I guess what I'm trying to say here is that what I'm seeing with VR goggles right now is a lot of potential. But I'm not convinced yet that all the conditions for a mass market breakthrough are in place - convenience of use, a sufficient number of (different) application cases, content availability, low purchasing price (or a massive functional advantage in at least one popular application case), and sufficiently potent companies to invest into the field. So far only the last point is solid green.
-
http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-180357
There are many factors at play beyond visual scene complexity, like the integration of the render cycle with the simulation cycle, and possible interdependencies. As a minimum you need to guarantee that ANY scene you would throw at the graphics card is guaranteed to render at 90 frames per second. The next big - and largely unsolved - problem is that of movement within the virtual environment. What works with first person shooters doesn't work - at all, as far as I can see - with VR games. So, this may require an entirely different approach to the whole design of the game.
It's these points that make a direct transfer of an existing title into a VR title such a big challenge. I'm not saying "insurmountable" - but the complexity is by far greater than just looking at the polycount of a scene. Just because one can imagine that a solution exists doesn't mean that it's easy to get there.
-
http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-182177
http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-182191
mpdugas makes a good argument. This part of the second link is the point of his argument:
You, too, could wear that mantle for tank simulations, if it weren't so far outside of your comfort zone to attempt. We've already covered that ground and your many objections, ad nauseam. I only mention it because you acknowledged 1998's Falcon's present excellence. Truthfully, I believe that a small developer called 1C/777 will wear that crown before eSim Games (sic) does.
You clearly miss the point of my post: it was intended to speak to those who hold out the hope that the present iteration of SBPro will ever support VR; I point out your 2016 message as an acknowledgement that is it too severe of a task to perform. There is utterly minimal likelihood that SBPro's rendering engine will ever be moved to DX11, as a minimum, to support VR. No, the intent of my post was to show the connection between your post of 2016 and the high improbability of SBPro, in its present incarnation, ever moving to a DX11 platform.
That cannot be construed as promoting VR. That's just more script-flipping. Please, just try not to be so antagonistic, and try not to react so personally, to my polite commentary."
To Grenny's smart-aleck remark "So where is the company that made Falcon 4 now??" (http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-182192), I answer "It changed its name to eSim Games". No, seriously, Ssnake himself states that "You realize the irony that four out of five programmers at eSim Games worked on Falcon 4, including BMS... ;)" (http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/10537-suggestion-for-graphics-of-sb-pro-41/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-155259) And these are the same people who are responsible for wrecking Falcon 4.0 to the point where Ssnake himself states that "In Falcon 4, everything is parallelized (or so I've been told by people who should know), yet it doesn't actually boost performance because you have a stop for data synchonization at pretty much every step in the code." (http://)
To Grenny's statement "Comfortable and undemanding? You don't know the custromers then." (http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-182193), I answer: sorry, you're wrong. The military clients are very undemanding when it comes to frame rates, just look at the recent Spanish brigade exercise video. The military clients are undemanding in the graphics department, as mpdugas pointed out.
To Grenny's challenge "Point is, none of them see any benefit in implementing VR for vehicle crew or tactical training. Can you name one?" (http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-182193), I can name several:
- Bohemia Interactive (https://bisimulations.com/company/news/press-releases/tue-02212017-1344/vbs3-expands-support-vr)
- TitanIM (http://titanim.net/www/index.php/component/k2/item/37)
- Holovis (https://www.itec.co.uk/exhibitor-press-releases/learnview-ar-presents-new-training-and-maintenance-dimensions-at-itec)
- EnterVR (https://www.itec.co.uk/exhibitor-press-releases/vr-shield-tactical-immersive-training)
- AEgis Technologies (https://www.itec.co.uk/exhibitor-press-releases/aegis-technologies-exhibiting-affordable-training-solutions-at-itec-conference-2018-germany)
- at one point even eSim Games thought there might be a benefit (http://vira.design/index.php/portfolio/82-interactive-spaces/181-steel-beasts)
-
Everyone in that industry is wrong. Esim games is right :funky_chicken
-
Everyone in that industry is wrong. Esim games is right :funky_chicken
And Ssnake continues to prove your point: http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-182196 But he's the person who's convinced that "immersion is no substitute for training value." (http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/10537-suggestion-for-graphics-of-sb-pro-41/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-155367) In being convinced of that, he's missing the point which this great article made: gameplay and graphics are inseparable (http://www.oldpcgaming.net/graphics-vs-gameplay/).
-
Ssnake is still insisting that eSim Games is right (http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?do=findComment&comment=182196), Captain_Colossus is accusing mpdugas of being a troll (http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-182203), and mpdugas makes great points: http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-182208
Ssnake:
1) You have not addressed any particular error of my having confused the two game versions , so I will not ask for more. I recognize that English is probably not your first language, and I will just accept that your nebulous reply is likely based on your probable failure to understand my request for specificity due to subtleties of language when reduced to writing.
2) SB was a VGA (640x480) non-3D accelerated game. You just noted that M1Tank Platoon II was Voodoo accelerated. That was the Glide API. It was in stiff competition with OpenGL and DirectX back in 1999.
I offer the following contemporary reviews of SB, written at the time, comments from the original SB development team and my personal experience playing it, all sources agree:
Gamespot, by Bruce Grey on Oct 4, 2000 14:20 PM "Steel Beasts is practically a textbook example of the strengths and weaknesses of independently developed and published games: Specifically, the graphics are not 3D accelerated, and they may seem rather drab and uninspired for those accustomed to the latest in hardware-pushing technology."
Reviewed on PC / 26 Jan 2001 :"Nor is there is support for 3D acceleration cards or EAX audio either. In fact, sole programmer, Al Delaney, began the entire project as a post-graduate lark back in 1996."
Fandom: "Reviewers were initially put off by the substandard 640x480 graphics, then highly impressed by the gameplay, immersion and the intelligent-seeming behaviors exhibited by the computerized units."
Tanksim: "It's okay to lament the lack of 3D accelerated graphics, it doesn't hold the sim back much."
In August of 2000, during an an interview in SimHQ with someone name Ssnake, he said " Nobody was willing to invest the comparatively tiny sum that was necessary to convert the game into a 3D accelerator supporting polygon engine. Al prepared the existing code for a swift engine migration which never came. This rendered all existing scenarios useless." In the same interview, Michael McConnell said "The lack of 3D accelerated graphics will turn some people off, but truth be told, the graphics of SB are more than adequate for the task, and many aspects of the graphics are very well done."
You contradict yourself.
3) When I offered Al an opportunity to meet with armor officers at Fort Hood, he declined to do so. Perhaps that was a seminal moment for him, and he later decided to do that. I can only speak to the moment when he was struggling so hard to find customers, and I personally tried to help him with that. Ab initio, SB was not intended for that market. It was some sort of solo engineering thesis, as I recall. He also remarked that "Certain publishers might want to fund an upgrade to the graphics engine to support 3D hardware acceleration as well as a major art upgrade, so that would set back the release by another three or four months or more."
In December, he interviews with SimHQ, as the only coder working on the game, and he said then that his four goals for SB were:
- Finish multiplayer in a big way.
- Upgrade the graphics engine /art.
- Implement our campaign system.
- Add more secondary vehicles and buildings.
- Add air support.
Looks like, even then, he wanted to do more with graphics, campaigns and aerial support, goals which have never been addressed to this day. And this in 1999. It was never written first to be a military training simulator. It was kind of a a challenge by his professor to use an idea he had developed . He said, in the same interview, "I created a terrain rendering engine and my wife and I decided that I should try to work for myself and make a game out of it."
4) This thread was about whether SBPro 4.0 would ever use VR; the low quality of SB graphics, in its original, or Pro form, are its weakest attribute. They remain that to this moment. I have never suggested that the other aspects of SB or SBPro are lacking, so you need not pivot that discussion, either. This is just your "red herring", another figure of speech.
5) uncannily similar is not "identical", but I will, as a courtesy to you, demure on the basis of the apparent language differences.
6) Benchmark Sims operates its process to modify Falcon 4.0 with the express consent of the copyright holders of the original Falcon 4.0 code; again, you do not seem to know your subject.
7) You create straw dogs from thin air, and then beat them down. I repeat: " You clearly miss the point of my post: it was intended to speak to those who hold out the hope that the present iteration of SBPro will ever support VR; I point(ed) out your 2016 message as an acknowledgement that is it too severe of a task to perform. There is utterly minimal likelihood that SBPro's rendering engine will ever be moved to DX11, as a minimum, to support VR. No, the intent of my post was to show the connection between your post of 2016 and the high improbability of SBPro, in its present incarnation, ever moving to a DX11 platform. "
In passing, I might mention that, in all of your "sturm und drang", you have never addressed that point. Instead, you've spun my post into a whole new direction of your own making. Why is the 3D engine of SBPro such a poor performer?
I really do think the subtlety of the meaning of my post has escaped you, and you deride me for words you put in my mouth, which is another figure of speech.
I will not reply to your fanbois except to say that you fan anger where there is no antipathy, you resist where there is no conflict, and you attribute to me much of what motivates you. My comment about VR was mild beyond reproach, yet here you are, berating me for a simple effort to connect one dot to another.
mpdugas also makes a hat tip to us :): http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-182210
Comfortable and undemanding? You don't know the custromers then.
Point is, none of them see any benefit in implementing VR for vehicle crew or tactical training. Can you name one?
I politely (more so than you) suggest you take up the discussion on the "Dogs Of War" forum, where all of your remarks have already been addressed.
Grenny can't be bothered to look up something: http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-182211
A simple and direct question, and your answer is "look it up somewhere"? That's your understanding of beeing polite?
Of course, Ssnake still insists that he's right (http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-182214), and Captain_Colossus insists (this time less obviously) that mpdugas is a troll (http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-182216).
-
mpdugas remains right: http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-182225
A simple and direct question, and your answer is "look it up somewhere"? That's your understanding of beeing polite?
It's more than you afforded me. I don't need to duplicate answers that other folks have already taken the time to lay out for you. Nothing rude in a referral.
But Grenny still won't listen: http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-182232
It's more than you afforded me. I don't need to duplicate answers that other folks have already taken the time to lay out for you. Nothing rude in a referral.
I just gave you a friendly advice.
Well, I guess you just don't have an answer after all...so you switch to strawman posts.
-
And the hits keep coming from mpdugas: http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-182234
-
http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-182241
Grenny's argument makes no sense, because for some reason he assumes that the trainee's body, arms, and legs have to be tracked. It's not that way in Steel Beasts currently, and it doesn't have to be that way in VR. Hand tracking and foot tracking can already be done by VR, even if it's not perfect yet: http://bgr.com/2017/12/14/htc-vive-tracker-review-virtual-reality-tracking/ There's no way all of the trackers needed for that, plus the more powerful PC hardware needed to drive VR, can cost more than a cabin trainer as Grenny claims.
-
http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-182251 You've got to love 12Alfa's sneaky personal attack. I thought he was above that. There goes any respect I ever had for him.
-
plus the more powerful PC hardware needed to drive VR, can cost more than a cabin trainer as Grenny claims.
Load of pish......the British military use VR for para training you don't need some crazy high powered systems.
i did tank training on a simple PC VR headset using VBS.....
-
Load of pish......the British military use VR for para training you don't need some crazy high powered systems.
i did tank training on a simple PC VR headset using VBS.....
Then that isn't an obstacle to VR.
Anyway, Azure Lion is a bootlicker with nothing of value to contribute who refers to Ssnake as "Sir Nils" (no, seriously) (http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-182259), and Grenny just keeps making personal attacks (http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-182260).
-
I forgot this, 12Alfa launches more personal attacks while pretending to be reasonable, and mpdugas falls for it: http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-182256
-
Azure Lion makes a personal attack by accusing mpdugas of projection (http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-182288), mpdugas responds (http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-182292), Ssnake rejects the too obvious bootlicking (http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-182295), and Homer announces – no doubt at Ssnake's prompting – that he'll take action on the thread (http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-182303).
-
And mpdugas makes another good post calling out Ssnake for his censorship, though I think Ssnake has mentioned before that he doesn't want to be called SSnake: http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-182308
-
And yet more personal attacks on mpdugas, this time from DrHat: http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-182314
-
This is the exact reason I do not go to their site, participate in any activities that group engages on, or engage with anyone from there. It is a systemic cesspool of back stabbing, keyboard warriors, after moving on from their military days, or a place for them to feel like they have power, and bully anyone not in the in group.
Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
-
Some things never change.
I suggest we leave the "discussion" going on over there where it will be most appreciated. No one from our group comments or interacts with that forum for good reason.
Lets leave them to it.
-
Just a quick aside for this post; I appreciate the kind remarks of those who followed this "debate" from a distance.
I will not bring any of this to this forum, it's just my way of thanking you guys for supporting my comments.
No, I will not be trying to lift the ban; it's a mark of honor to me.
this is mpdugas, out.
-
Just a quick aside for this post; I appreciate the kind remarks of those who followed this "debate" from a distance.
I will not bring any of this to this forum, it's just my way of thanking you guys for supporting my comments.
No, I will not be trying to lift the ban; it's a mark of honor to me.
this is mpdugas, out.
No problem. Anyway, http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-182329
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/957/661/043.jpg)(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/64169985/you-use-your-status-as-a-second-rate-web-forum-moderator-to-bully-people-over-the-internet-you-must-.jpg)
Nike-Ajax is agreeing with Homer (http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11869-virtual-reality-support/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-182331), no doubt out of fear of being banned given that fellow others member Major Duck got banned from the forum for something that forester did (http://www.others.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=101&t=4165).
-
I remember my experience on that forum.
Their were personal attacks against our group and at times, me specifically. They were not stopped. The admins let it continue because the attacks were designed to make us look like the "evil doers".
Also some of the members followed me to another forum and attacked me there. One of them was on the Esims development team. He got banned and admin action was taken quickly against the others.
All of the above is still there for people to see.
I risk reprisals. With this post.
It is a shame that any criticism of the game is seen as a personal attack.
-
Looking at the language of the post that the admin announced my ban in, did ever I do or say anything as offensive, in any of my posts, as he did to me? It was particularly ironic that he announced his independence from eSim, yet, without that cosseting presence, his website would wither away.
I know I write a lot; I know for most forum readers my stuff is TL;DR, but if anyone takes the time to actually to read the exchanges, they will see who was truthful and who was not.
Nonetheless, I was aware that more rational people were following the debate from afar, and their comments were supportive, for which I am grateful.
When the final curtain rings down on their woefully under-performing product, they will know who brought it there.
-
When the final curtain rings down on their woefully under-performing product, they will know who brought it there.
Yes. I touched on this issue in another thread I made here: http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/topic,5622.0.html
-
Some think that VR is useful: http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/topic,6317.0.html
-
https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/14237-is-sb-pro-pe-41x-compatible-with-3-curved-monitors/?tab=comments#comment-206303
I'm not fundamentally opposed to the thought. It's just that in order to make it work, a LOT of work needs to be invested, and I'm skeptical if the results will justify the effort.
- Step 1, invent/adopt a render engine that can reliably deliver a steady 90 frames per second, per eye, in high resolution. We'll do that with 5.0, but it'll take a while.
- Step 2, VR is obviously wonderful if you're inside the tank, looking around. Until you notice all the surfaces that we removed to optimize the polycount from a number of fixed locations. With 6DOF movement you will start spotting them.
Should we fix all that?
This would amount to redoing all the interiors, without getting paid (IOW, we could do this only at a slow pace, so initially only very few vehicles would be VR enabled). - Step 3, if you're the vehicle commander or the driver, while you're not looking into sights, VR is glorious. But the driver's position is not the focus of this simulation, and if you're just admiring the beautiful tank interiors you're doing it wrong, and the virtual enemy will deliver virtual death to you quickly. IOW, the moments where VR works best are arguably least important to your actual gameplay. Should we then change the gameplay to accommodate the few with VR goggle better?
- Step 4, there's the challenge to operate the instruments inside your virtual tank. VR without data gloves or some other pointing device will be useless. Sure, there's products like Manus VR which not only allows you to point at things but also to get tactile feedback if you click a button. But these are still expensive.
- Step 5: With VR goggles on, you can't properly use your keyboard anymore. Boom, about 120 hotkeys that you're accustomed to are now GONE and need to be substituted somehow. 3D Gesture Tracking? Voice Recognition? Maybe all these can contribute towards a solution but don't believe for a second that they will work faster and as precise as pressing a single hotkey.
People tend to see the "glorious" aspect, and I agree that it is tempting. But there's a looong tail of tasks and challenges that need to be solved which, while we're concentrating on these, will prevent us from working on other stuff. So these opportunity costs need to be taken into account as well. And when I do all that, my conclusion is that under the prevailing conditions it's just not worth it.