GRAPHICS
Gone are the days of 640x480 resolution, 256 colors, software mode
only! The graphics deliver very adequately and can be freely adjusted up
to 1600 resolution. I played with 1024 resolution for the main and for
comparison and playability tests with 1280, the angular speeds were a bit
lower in the higher resolution, but by far no show-stopping differences I
found. Driving the tank, angular speeds are something you do not need to
think of, they only come to your mind when you are aiming and moving the
turret quickly to a nearby target that is moving by closely, resulting in
a fast change of angles. Ssnake (technical director of eSim and ex-tanker
himself) recommended preferring a lower resolution of 800 if this is
needed to get ansitropic filtering and anti-aliasing working.He thinks
vehicles and especially their antennas look better that way. A question of
taste, I think, if forced to make a selection I would prefer it exactly
the other way around – higher resolution and no AA or AF. I tried AA and
AF at 2x, but the graphical gain was minimal, where frames lost
immediately one third. But the landscape graphics in SBP I found to be so
good that even without AF and AA I am absolutely stunned by the way the
environment is visually represented! It looks very, very good, and I
really do not miss AA or AF concerning the landscape. Vehicles of course
show some more contrasting lines without AA/AF or flickering antennas and
that’s all the disadvantage I see. For 95% of mission time I am not aware
of it. Frames never were an issue with 1024 and no AF and AA.
On my system I always had fluid movement even when I set up a quick
skirmish that involved several companies of tanks all in viewing range,
firing wild in one hotspot of limited size, or when observing via player
camera an amateurish setup of a two company-assault line of tanks that was
approaching a perimeter defended by an equal-sized force plus artillery
barrages (idiotic, I know…). Months ago there have been reports from
players or beta-testers somewhere that even a setup with two battalions
massing in one small area resulted in slightly slower but still fluid,
fully playable frames. I haven’t checked that size of a mission. The
biggest thing I had were five or six companies I just scattered around
near a village and then frantically started combat while I was enjoying
the show, inclusive several artillery bombardments – graphically it worked
well. From what I have seen so far I am confident that the sim would even
handle a brigade-sized force stretched out over an according wide front at
acceptable frame rates. Even when under attack and attacking vehicles and
"flying objects", graphic effects and missile trails are adding to the
overall calculation of the CPU and graphic-board. But for that maybe a
stronger system than mine would be needed.
But I do not see any need to set up such scenarios. Two or three
companies is more than most of us will ever be able to handle, believe me.
There is a reason why the military gives you a single vehicle to command
first and only later eventually a section or platoon.
You don’t see all that colorful eye candy you used to see when playing
Unreal Tournament but having said that SBP still does a very competent job
in creating the visual representation of a natural battlefield with
realistic viewing conditions and ranges. So far the sim presents desert
terrain and wooded terrain (Europe-style, in summer/, autumn and winter).
Mods for new terrain sets can be expected. The up and down of the
terrain’s surface is well modeled and gives you a very realistic feeling,
no matter if it is desert or green plains, hills and ridges or rocky
valleys. Maybe you have seen the screenshots of the recreation of the
Grand Canyon area some months ago. There is some diversity in the
vegetation now and you have real riverbeds and bridges, side-roads and
major traffic lanes. Visibility ranges can be freely adjusted that give
the impression of dust or haze in the air. You can fight in conditions
where you wouldn’t see your hands in front of your face, if you want. With
growing distance colors and contrasts fade, giving you a superb feeling of
depth. Viewing distances in the SB world are huge and – assuming no
obstacles hinder your view - must be measured in kilometers. Five km under
best atmospheric conditions are the limit, I estimate. You will not see a
"wall of nothing" at 2 km like in so many other games or in flightsims
when they render the clouded sky and there is a sharp line where the
clouds end. The terrain graphics supply you with exactly the perceptions
and viewing ranges you need to have when doing mechanized warfare on the
ground, the feeling of distance is very good. I personally like the color
palette, too. It is missing the oversaturated poison-green and
electric-blue and citron-yellow colors you see in games so often, but
paints the world in more realistic pastel colors with far lesser
saturation. Textures for ground come in various incarnations and add the
needed diversity to make the terrain look realistic. Buildings also have
more diversity now than in SB1, although if creating a settlement they
soon become repetitive. But they do their job and they do it in a solid
way. All in all I must say I like the Steel Beasts world and the way it
was graphically created. It gives you a good reason to fight for the
ground you are rolling over.
Vehicle models are very detailed and are equipped with detailed
textures that come in three sets of camouflage patterns: woodland, winter,
and desert. These fit the four types of environment there are: woodland
(which means not only European woodland, but also Asian style, so
eventually you want to yell out Good Morning Vietnam!, and the Australian
bush), autumn, winter/arctic, desert. Especially certain terrain
formations in winter give some spectacular, very realistic visual
representations. Sub-versions of vehicle types with different weapons or
special equipment are easy to recognize. Of course all models are fully
animated with moving tracks and turning wheels, realistic weapon movements
(although still no main gun recoil), opening and closing hatches, dynamic
"hops" of a tank firing its cannon and the recoil making it – well, as I
said, making it hop a bit. You will easily identify a vehicle at far
distance by its unique silhouette and design (as long as it is not hiding
in dust, fog, or vegetation). I like this zoo of the Steel Beasts very
much. It looks very alive.
What I also like is how well colors of the landscape and vegetation and
camouflage patterns of the vehicles fit together. Camouflage is not only
cosmetic in this sim, it really does its job. I often found the
contrasting silhouettes of vehicles to soften up and disappear when I
watched them being parked in a line of woods or with a forest as a
background. This is because the contrasts are fading over distance but
even from closer ranges the camouflage pattern help to fool the eye to a
degree that I have not seen before in any sim. Spotting is difficult in
SBP, and even more so if trying to spot infantry over distances where the
TIS (the thermal image system that displays objects by their
heat-signatures) is of no use. Even when they move around and I use
optical magnification I have difficulties to recognize the presence of
troops in that forest.
While tanks blend nicely into the background level of bushes and
forests, on other occasions, on the other hand, I saw lighting conditions
when shadowed sides of vehicles became too dark to be believable and thus
the tanks showed up with too much contrast, compared to the background,
especially in open terrain (light grass for example). This really seems to
be an art that so far most sim developers seem to be unable to master:
objects often are too bright or too dark. To balance the contrast between
shadowed and lightened aspects of objects that way that you get a
believable visual impressions – no matter what the environment‘s viewing
and light conditions are, seem to be very tricky. Maybe a more complex and
in-depth simulation of biological eye adaptation to changing lighting
conditions is in need here. Ironically Ssnake once has asked me about
exactly this, maybe three years ago or so (back then I laughed and told
him I even cannot dream on a method how this could be achieved and that he
should ask a former friend of mine, an eye doctor – but maybe it is just
my missing fantasy when it comes to things that can be done with a good
software code).
The Leo2A5 has a complete 3D-interior, with great detail and even some
mouse-clickable buttons in the commander’s position. The Abrams and Bradleys also have 3D-interiors for their commanders but there is not so
much to see and to use in these vehicles as in the Leo2A5. The number of
vehicles offering this feature is expected to increase in the future. You
can move your head freely, pop your head out of the hatch or dive back
into the depth of your tank. Think of it as the kind of cockpit you get to
see in the IL-2 series, or a racing sim like GTR with free movement and
free zooming. By that you get full immersion if you play a mission
completely from your station, because the commander has useful instruments
and displays in that view that are fully usable – you can fight from
there, it’s not just a gimmick for illustration purposes. Controls and
buttons are clickable via mouse button (they are also linked to keyboard
commands). It’s a very cool feature and it is very well implemented. Even
many American Abrams-lovers probably will spend much time in the German
beast because of the 3D-cockpit in the Leo being more detailed or complex
than in the Abrams. Leo2A5-commanders also will benefit from having an
optical periscope and a black/white co-monitor available (the M1A1
commander has neither this nor the IVIS system). In this context I just
note here that you have three different thermal vision colors available in
the game, depending on the vehicle platform you are using: black/white
(Leo2 TC), green/white (Abrams, Leo2: commander, gunner), and red/black
(Bradley). Polarity can be changed for all.
There is a driver’s seat for most of the vehicles now you do not see
much through the three prisms, but it is enough. As a workaround the
driver’s position can be used "unbuttoned", too, then the cockpit bitmap
disappears and the mouse is used to look around. It’s not completely
realistic but maybe a better compromise. I personally do not see the point
to play a mission from that position. But racing around in a Hummer (now,
that one of course has no prism sights…) is some kind of fun.
Weapon effects are showing some more diversity now and together with
the frightening loud and realistic sound they give you some show for your
money. I raised an eyebrow when I saw for the first time a round falling
short off my target – and was reflected from the ground and bounced off
the earth, ricocheting into the air and high above the target. However,
one has to admit that this sim is not an FX show like many action games
out there, this kind of stuff simply is not ranking high on its priority
list. Explosions for example are a little bit limited and small in their
scope. Burning tanks also produce fires and smoke trails of that somewhat
limited size, and not more. You see tracers, and sparkles and ricochets
when hitting armor with smaller caliber fire. Effects like dust trails
from driving in dry terrain, or artillery impacts also are functional only
and give you the needed representation of events in a functional
understanding but they do not look really spectacular. The smoke covering
from artillery barrages was thicker and more covering in SB1 than it is in
SBP, although the single clouds look better now. I know that kind of event
only from TV pictures and SBP does not appear to reach the intensity of
that visual effect of smoke from artillery.
Effects definitely are not like Unreal Tournament in visual performance
but what you need for a solid immersion experience is all there in terms
of scope and range of effects. They are a little bit clinical in
appearance and design, a little bit too sober, maybe, or cartoon-like in
style, the transparency effects of smoke and dust are by far not state of
the art. But while they are lacking the finesse of what can be done today
in these regards, they are substantial and solid if taken for themselves
and not comparing them to gfx-gimmick-games from the shelves, and no one
plays a study sim like this for visual action effects only. The sim has
been made for a very different market than the usual player/customer, it
has been made for the real military, and that customer is not so hot for
graphic candies. I cannot complain about anything in the graphics,
although I can imagine how to make many things better – at the cost of
probably lowering the frame rate. SBP has a very good balance between
graphics and frames, obviously some thought into what needs to be seen and
what is graphics are affecting the CPU with little gameplay improvement. I
myself like it, and the sight of complex landscapes that are possible is
very convincing. It is important to understand that SB2 will see more
resources spend on graphics, and these improvements may be added to SBP as
well when they are available. SBP is planned for years of constant support
and updating, says the developer.
Infantry comes in many different types, some months ago someone wrote
in a preview he counted 40 or 50 different types. I have not counted them
myself, but although I saw a very diverse set of grunts, these numbers
maybe were exaggerated. At least there are grunts with normal weapons and
grunts with AT-weapons. In the editor you can select uniforms for over a
dozen different nationalities. So, there seem to be a good amount of
diversity, at least visually - if the differences always are so very
obvious is something different: you hardly will have the time to admire
their outfit once the action has started. They are still bitmaps, which
first sounds like a critical thing, but it is not really. If you have
infantry that close to your tank that you could see a difference between
polygon-made infantry and bitmaps then you surely are already in deep
trouble. Animation is a bit blocky and – which is one of the small
criticisms I may voice – a bit slow, the way they move definitely does not
look convincing to me, this aspect of the sim could need some substantial
rework. However, they do look much better than the old SB1-comrades of
theirs, the improvements went as far as to different uniforms and
equipments, different faces (some seem to have beards, cool), better
animation, so it is okay enough for the duty they are to fulfill within
the simulation’s context.
Infantry is confirmed to be planned for both visual and AI improvements
in the next update, it will be brought to polygon-level.
Complete day-and-night-cycle unfortunately is not yet implemented but
it is on the list, so may be added in a later add-on, the same with
weather effects like rain, storm and fog. Weather effects like fog and
rain will affect the sim both visually (what you see on monitor) and
gameplay-wise (how the AI is affected by visual conditions). While you may
think missing weather and day-and-night is a major issue, I remind you how
well the old Steel Beasts played without these two factors, and the future
of SBP holds sweet promises for us. Shadows also are not implemented yet,
but surprisingly – I do not miss them, that good things already look. In
forest they would be nice, to make forest a little bit darker, but in the
open – shadows are not a priority for me.
All in all I find the graphical presentation to be adequate, to say the
least, with the vehicle models, 3D-ground surface modeling and vegetation
very well done, and special visual effects being solid, but not
spectacular. We also know that more good stuff (weather, light-cycle) is
coming. But by no means you should take the latter two remarks as an
indication that the gap between gameplay and graphics is as wide as was
the case with SB1, which offered a graphics-engine that already was
hopelessly outdated at the time of its release. I said the graphics in SBP
are adequate, and I exactly mean it like that. They do the job that they
should do from the perspective of a serious classroom simulation, so there
is nothing to really complain about, and the sim gives a very good overall
presentation of the world. With the already implemented things I can
imagine to improve many of the graphical effects, but in no regard the sim
does "suffer" from the current visual condition it is in. Solid, with room
for improvements.
