Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Why I won´t buy it.....yet

ranXeron

By ranXeron
in T-72: Balkans on Fire!

 Share

Recommended Posts

Jester_159th Member

Jester_159th

Posted
Posted

Yet again: Quote from ESims website:

The professional version of Steel Beasts is offered in two variations: Steel Beasts Professional, and SB Pro Personal Edition. Steel Beasts Professional is designed for use in a simulation lab under the direction of a dedicated operator / controller, whereas SB Pro Personal Edition is meant to be deployed on individual soldiers' notebooks or home PCs for exercises that can be worked on independently.

And again, a link to the developer's web page[commercial URL deleted]

BOTH proffessional versions are for defence agencies only. I have done my homework on this product by checking the company's website directly.

I sincerely hope that you're right and I'm wrong, but from what I've seen (not counting forum scuttlebutt that can't be trusted anyway) I stand by what I've posted. If they prove me wrong I'll be more than happy to purchase the product and apologise.

BTW...I NEVER said they were going to turn it into an arcade game.

[ July 18, 2005, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: Moon ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Don_Rostov Junior Member

Don_Rostov

Posted
Posted

I preordered it, got it,and have tried to like it. Everything is turned way-down on the graphics, and still get really bad performance.

Other games like Il-2 run just fine on my system. I think I've followed all the advice, but I think the game (not even remotely close to being a sim) is very flawed. Its even more frustrating when I'm running the recommended hardware. And yes developers, I do look at that before making a game purchase.

Still no answer on the joystick axis issue, the map interface offers nothing, no better than 8 FPS on a barren map.Too many flaws to name, really. My game looks like SB1, but SB1 actually runs smooth.

I want this title to succeed long-term, and that will only happen if its playable to most casual gamers with medium-end machines.

My advice-don't buy until developers put out a good first patch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Diesel Member

Diesel

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by Jester_159th:

Yet again: Quote from ESims website:

whereas SB Pro Personal Edition is meant to be deployed on individual soldiers' notebooks or home PCs for exercises that can be worked on independently.

Keyword being home PCs. Since they are selling SB Pro PE through their webstore, anyone can buy it. Their website doesn't mention anywhere that SB Pro PE is for defence agencies only.

I have done my homework on this product by checking the company's website directly.
Obviously you need to do some more homework.

I sincerely hope that you're right and I'm wrong, but from what I've seen (not counting forum scuttlebutt that can't be trusted anyway) I stand by what I've posted.
Of course forum scuttlebutt counts and can be trusted if Ssnake(Nils Hinrichsen) posts in the threads.

BTW...I NEVER said they were going to turn it into an arcade game.
Well, that's what "ripping its guts out" strongly insinuates.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BlAin Member

BlAin

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by Don_Rostov:

I preordered it, got it,and have tried to like it. Everything is turned way-down on the graphics, and still get really bad performance.

Other games like Il-2 run just fine on my system. I think I've followed all the advice, but I think the game (not even remotely close to being a sim) is very flawed. Its even more frustrating when I'm running the recommended hardware. And yes developers, I do look at that before making a game purchase.

Still no answer on the joystick axis issue, the map interface offers nothing, no better than 8 FPS on a barren map.Too many flaws to name, really. My game looks like SB1, but SB1 actually runs smooth.

I want this title to succeed long-term, and that will only happen if its playable to most casual gamers with medium-end machines.

My advice-don't buy until developers put out a good first patch.

In the same reasoning as described by Don_Rostov, I looked at the pictures and screenshots posted for SB2 and I must say that I am not very impressed by the graphics; just the trees look better than those of T72: BOF. So, if this game is a "real" simulation, than they forgot a crucial aspect, you need a great graphic engine to be fully immersed in a tank sim, you can't rely on bland texturing and 3D design to feel like in a simulation like the old days of sub sims (or not so far away, even though it is still acceptable for modern warfare subsims like Dangerous Waters).

So, expect the 2006/2007 release of the Israelo-Syrian war tank sim as a game that will surpass its peer (being T-72:BOF) and its competitors with its improved graphics, action, realism and immersiveness by a far margin, I have no doubt about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
klugman Member

klugman

Posted
Posted

I dont believe anyone needed "a great graphics engine" to be fully immersed when Steel Beast first came out. We were just happy to have a darned good Armored combat sim.

For me realism is better than eyecandy. I still play Digital Integration's Tornado from time to time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Don_Rostov Junior Member

Don_Rostov

Posted
Posted

I just re-installed Steel Beasts. I'll be back daily looking for a patch. And for the record, here's what my system is, which indeed is RECOMMENDED by the developer.

p4 2.8

1 gig ram (1 512ddr, 2 256 ddr)

60 gig HD, with 28 gigs free

gforce 5200 fx 128

and a really old headset (maybe this is the problem)

Seriously, I WANT THIS GAME TO WORK, but the ****-sandwich I got from you is way to fubar for me to deal with. Hopefully, I'm wrong. But even without the performance issues, I don't think the game will last long without the multiplayer option (over internet).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kobra Member

Kobra

Posted
Posted

Ditch the crappy 5200FX.. One of the worst graphic cards in all of history..

You can pick up a 6600GT for $125... I don't recommend going with anything less than that. Including the 9800Pros, which are previous generation.

I agree though, from trying the demo, it looks like the engine wasn't coded very well - and not optimized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Officer Meatbeef Junior Member

Officer Meatbeef

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by Don_Rostov:

I just re-installed Steel Beasts. I'll be back daily looking for a patch. And for the record, here's what my system is, which indeed is RECOMMENDED by the developer.

p4 2.8

1 gig ram (1 512ddr, 2 256 ddr)

60 gig HD, with 28 gigs free

gforce 5200 fx 128

and a really old headset (maybe this is the problem)

You don't actually have the recommended hardware, when it comes to the video card. The recommended video hardware is:

-DirectX 9.0 Compatible Video Card (i.e. GeForce FX5600 or Radeon 9600XT)

There is an enormous difference between a Geforce FX5200 and a FX5600. As others have already pointed out, the FX5200 is not a good card. Here's a quick primer, because this is a common situation thanks to Nvidia's terrible (the less generous might even say fradulent) naming system for their low-end cards:

The Geforce FX5200 is actually SLOWER than a Geforce 4 4200 in nearly every way! It's a similar debacle to the garbage Nvidia pulled with the Geforce 4 MXs (which were actually closer to minorly-upgraded Geforce 2s than anything! But at least the MXs were clearly labelled as a seperate (bad) card; that FX5200 naming scheme is much more insidious.

In fact, the only thing an FX5200 does faster than a Geforce 4 4200 is DirectX 9 operations, for a very simple reason: Geforce 4s don't do DirectX 9 stuff at all! That little extra feature is how they manage to get away with selling the FX5200 as an FX at all, but DirectX 9 features are still fairly rare anyway and having the support for better shaders and what-have-you that DX9 provides doesn't do a whole lot of good when the card can't do basic rendering well.

I actually have a Geforce 4 4200 and the demo runs very well for me, particularly after I turned off the drawing of grass. I've left everything else at the default values: 1024X768 res (no anti-aliasing of course) and pretty much every bell and whistle turned on and/or set to "highest" detail. I don't know if the game auto-configs based on detected hardware or not.

You should still be able to squeeze a decent framerate out of that FX5200, because the rest of your specs are just fine, but you'll probably have to turn down a lot of detail. Sorry, but I'm afraid this is your video card's problem, not the game's, so a patch probably won't be able to do much good. Good luck with your tweaking!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
klugman Member

klugman

Posted
Posted

Kobra for a budget card (two years ago it was 500 bux) the 9800pro rox. Right now he can get one for 150 bux easy.

I can play everything I own at full detail. Wich is more than I can say for the crappy 5600fx I used to own.

Besides I am waiting to see where the new technology is headed. Because it seems to me all they (Nvidia/ATI) have to offer is SLI, and pumped up older tech. Not new technology at all. Not worth 500 bux (and lots more) anyway.

Klugman

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Diesel Member

Diesel

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by BlAin:

In the same reasoning as described by Don_Rostov, I looked at the pictures and screenshots posted for SB2 and I must say that I am not very impressed by the graphics; just the trees look better than those of T72: BOF.

Vehicle models look a whole lot better too. They are detailed and you can actually distinguish the model they are supposed to represent, unlike in BoF, which has T-72B but the model looks like T-72A/M1. The BoF Leo 1 model looks amateur work compare to SB2 model. Texture quality and detail level are on a whole other level on SB2 models.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Diesel Member

Diesel

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by GunzAbeam:

So, we're comparing 125 US dollars to 35 US dollars ..come on man ...get real.

SB 2 will cost as much as most retail games(and will have that exact same model with even more eye candy). SB Pro PE costs 125 bucks. How much more real can it get?

Besides, it was Blain that did the graphics comparison in first place. So why don't you tell him to get real? tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dennis50 Senior Member

Dennis50

Posted
Posted

you against 50 or so tanks in steel beasts ...that's real ? lol ..sounds like arcade to me. What ever turns your crank man. I really don't know what you guys .....never mind.

I'm having fun. That's all that matters.

Best regards,

Gunz

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Diesel Member

Diesel

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by GunzAbeam:

you against 50 or so tanks in steel beasts ...that's real ? lol ..sounds like arcade to me. What ever turns your crank man. I really don't know what you guys .....never mind.

I'm having fun. That's all that matters.

Best regards,

Gunz

Yeah, what's so unreal about it? Because you can have 50 tanks and IFV's yourself you can put against those 50+ enemy tanks. Sounds a bit more real war to me than what BoF has.

By the way, the "how much more real can it get" was answer to your "get real comment", not how realistic the game is.

Of course graphics aren't everything. SB1, even though released 5 years ago, is still the most realistic and immersive tank simulation out here. "Simulation" as in true meaning of the word sim, not a half-assed attempt of it like T-72 BoF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moon Senior Member

Moon

Posted
Posted

Guys, there is no need for this kind of "my sim is better than your sim". SB1 is a great game, I still have and still play the Gold Edition. It was definitely a more in-depth simulation than T72 is or intends to be. Which is a good thing if you ask me, it would be boring if the two games were exactly the same.

I don't think that SB2 is out yet? So there is very little point in comparing it with T72. But even afer it's out, let's be happy that there are two games for armor fans to choose from. T72 is not going to steal one customer from SB2, nor the other way around. And we would not want to have it any other way... the esim guys are good guys (even though we think that they should publish SB2 with us ;) )...

I am going to lock this thread to avoid that we start going in circles while the only thing that changes is the choice of offensive words.

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...