Wolfie

HE, no. AP, now that's another thing. But yeah, modern tanks laugh at HE, unless it happens to break the periscope windows or mangle an antenna. Then you have some angry tankers. I think the Arma forums have some really good discussions on armor values and penetration by various weapons. I keep meaning to check it out. I know the ACE2 team made a pretty good armor system for the vehicles vs. all kinds of weapons. I believe a guy named King Homer did it for them. He seemed to know what he was talking about.

Lets see some proof of that. After all, the gun can supposedly only pierce about 60-70mm RHA at 500 meters. Hint: M1 side armor about 6 - 700mm RHA? Frontal: Above 800mm RHA? Even if you knock out its track on one side, maybe damage periscope, etc., its weapons are probably still functional, and you are now very much in its weapons range, which can include .50 machine guns, proximity fused HE shells, canister rounds, etc. As long as the crew, and some weapons function, its not dead. And a well trained crew is not going to abandon it, but wait for reinforcements and repair, if at all possible. Personally, I don't think the gun can do more than take out APCs. Mavericks, rockets, etc. are what is made for taking out modern tanks. And thats why we need a realistic armor system in this sim.

And again, we come to the subject of the post. Unrealistic damage systems. Killing an M1 with a long range burst from a 30mm is pure BS. I hope you guys at ED will put in realistic damage and armor systems in the future, because thats the whole point of having a FIGHTER flight sim. Otherwise, we might as well just stick with MSFS. And please do this before putting out any more aircraft, because without a realistic world, they're just useless. Concentrate on the main points of your world. The finer things can be filled in later. Right now, it looks like it is nothing but hit points, which is why the explosive warheads do so much more damage.

Agreed. And I for one would not want to be trying to take an area where a tank has just lost a track or maybe its periscope got knocked out. If its weapons are still active, any light vehicles and infantry are in deep sh*t. Nor are well trained tank crews going to abandon their tank just because some GAU-8 knocked on their door. They might lose a track or so, but what most likely is going to happen is your going to get a butfull of .50 when you fly past that "dead" tank.

Actually, 30mm is only for use against lightly armored APC's and older tanks like the T-55. Against a T-72, T-80, M1, etc, its not going to be that effective. Maybe if you dived 90 degrees and hit the top armor from one or two 100 meters. Other than that your just going to damage tracks, periscopes, etc. This is where mavericks and large rockets with dual shaped charge warheads come in. Kinetic is the best form of penetration against heavy armor, but the 30mm of the even the A-10 can't achieve it against modern tanks. That's why the modern armies built them that heavy. This is why I say that the damage ( and apparently no armor ) system in this game is flawed. You guys need to study some of the damage / armor systems in Arma's ACE2 mod. They did a pretty good job, RHA and all. DCS has done a great job on the planes, now they need to take a look at everything else.

NO, what you have without any kind of effected world is simply MSFS. And we know how that went... I know of many FPS and Arma types who like what they see in DCS, but they do NOT like that that the world beneath the sky is just a seemingly untouchable illusion, which is also my biggest complaint. ED needs to start to fixing its world before it makes any more aircraft. Otherwise, whats the point of learning to fly it?

WTF!? ED needs to start moving a lot more assets into fixing its "world". Even the ARMA ACE2 mod models that stuff pretty well. And their just a modding group. Future fighters are no good if they can't accurately effect the world they are fighting in. This is why we are still a low end niche.

Lol, and this is why I have said many times that E.D. needs to go the ARMA route to survive. I know you guys want to concentrate on aircraft, and you have a few 3rd parties lined up to help you. It looks like your going to have about 10 new planes are so in the next few years. Now, in order to get the FPS guys ( the majority of computer gamers and the majority in inflowing money ) in with you, you or some third parties should put in some infantry, vehicle, and increased scenery modules to boot. That will be sure to really boost your sales and make everyone happy, especially since it looks like Bohemia is trying to increase its flight sim realism and compete with you. Some people say the graphics aren't good enough for FPS, but one of the BEST FPS sims EVER was the UT1 ( yes, ONE!) mod Infiltration. Twelve years later or so, its still one of the best. While graphics are great, they aren't everything. Immersion is. And I know you say that will also increase the load on computers, but modern day computers are pretty powerful and gamers tend to spend a lot on them, making them virtual Ferrari's. GPU's are especially powerful now, and you need to code to push more load on to those GPU's, since they seem to be the new upcoming number crunching powerhouses, leaving the CPU's just guiding traffic.

Will we be able to gun down the Elvis impersonators? PLEASE?!

:music_whistling:

Oh please, were all adults here. I hear worse from 2 year olds these days. His language was fine.

Yep. I see both companies moving towards one another, Arma2 STRONGLY and DCS more weakly. Arma2 will become strong competition against DCS for its more casual players. If DCS doesn't work on getting ground forces in, all it will be left with is the hardcore flight simmers (and we know how few there are left). DCS has to move towards Arma and FPS to survive.

I agree with the OP. DCS is now DCS:World. Let it be a WORLD. If DCS and third party devs want to bring in infantry and more objects, terrain, etc., let em do it. I'm all for it. I would love to see a more sim wise, realistic version of ARMA. Arma is about 10 years old now? Surely, with our newer tech now, we can start to bring together realistic infantry, vehicle, and aircraft simulation into one world.

As long as I can still grope for my joystick... :music_whistling::D

Yes, ARMA has been around for what?, 10 years now? Surely we have the tech to move beyond that now. DCS needs to get the pretty realistic landscape of ARMA, and then move beyond that with better graphics. Only then will we be able to bring in realistic land and sea forces. This sim needs to become the "real world" version of ARMA. Imagine playing in a Crysis graphics world with "real" study level sim tanks, aircraft, and infantry. And I'm sure there are third party developers and mod groups ( ACE, for instance ), who share that dream. We just need DCS to give us a base world. I know graphics can really bring a computer to its knees, but come'on. Were study sim players. We spend money on our computers and we want more. I play Crysis on a cheap $500 USD HP Laptop. If my laptop can do that with large Crysis maps, I know a good desktop with a $500 USD video card could probably run Crysis graphics in DCS. This sim does need better graphics (and buildings, etc), especially if you want to attract FPS players for ground troops.

That was awesome! :D

I'm with BB. I never have liked Star Force. It's just too HEAVY of a DRM. In A-10, the dam thing constantly comes up saying my computer has changed. Really getting tired of it. And then the pirates crack it and play it for free with no DRM problems whatsoever. So far, I think DRM is just plain Anti-Buyer. It only screws with those who pay.

Nice movie! FSX looked pretty good for once!

+1. Its getting a little stale.

Amen.

Well done, dude!

LMAO

Yeah, obviously its an early beta, and there's still some major bugs in there.

Nice video! Can hardly wait for "study level" ground force modules.

Reality's a bitch. Simulators are good at showing flaws in what you thought was invincible. :doh: And the Ruskies put out some dam fine weapon systems. :music_whistling: A little patience, bud! Thank God for ED! Have you seen ANY other company try to do what they are doing here? With realism? Only Arma has tried and if it wasn't for the modders, it wouldn't be worth shit. Not too mention its tiny compared to the land encompassed in BS2 and A-10. Vanilla arma has about 0% realism in it. More like playing with military barbie dolls. It sucks, and BIS doesn't plan on doing anything about it. Now look at the TOTAL REALISM in ED's products. I couldn't hope for better than this. True that things are not very good ground wise right now ( in realism and graphics), and there are still a lot of bugs. BUT ITS A START. And you can already see some realism taking place ( gear shifting for instance). You won't see that in Arma. I have a LOT of faith in ED. This first beta is a money making venture for the die hards to buy ( you've got to make money to stay alive). So give it time. One day we'll see DCS:M1A2 TUSK as an addon module, and better, rolling landscape, I'm sure. Also wouldn't mind seeing DCS:T80U