Apocalypse31

Just my personal opinion, but I think Muffler should've won. This was a contest for a COMBINED ARMS video. Muffler's video was the only video that actually focused on the combined arms module. The other two were primarily focused on planes and helicopters, with a small dab of the CA module. Perhaps a closer reflection on how the CA module is treated by the Eagle Dynamics. I only hope that one day, Eagle Dynamics will outsource the module to a company who can do something with it, and not just let it sit idle with game breaking bugs.

This is game breaking for the combined arms module, and the reason why I'm stepping away from DCS until it can be resolved. It's not fun for ground players. I also did some testing http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=167789 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=167341

Ah yes, of course. I was waiting for someone to come by and say this. It gets tossed around somewhat frequently around here. Wags spent five seconds talking about ground vehicles in a video - CA must be getting an overhaul! :megalol:

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Ten ground commanders manage a fight? I think not. Combined Arms currently supports both RTS and FPS play. However, both are extremely primitive and require much refinement. I'm not sure why people don't believe in the coexistence of the two play styles for CA. We ALREADY have both. No need to go backwards in development when both can be easily improved .

thats unfortunate - it is confusing

MP Late Activation Units Available for Play at start of mission I have a multiplayer mission that is centered around the concept of fighting to open new FARPS, along their frontline- when they seize a new FARP, new aircraft become available to the players - giving them a place, closer to the frontlines to rearm/repair, as well as respawn so that their flight time is the same during the entire battle. As shown in the screenshot - aircraft that are not available to play at the start of the mission are showing as playable. Everything listed as '00' is available at start, but anything beyond that '01', '02', etc shouldnt be available. Is there any way ED can hide the non-playable stuff?

I'd say armored warfare only - eSim is not big into the infantry stuff - which is MUCH needed if we're talking about ground warfare. It's not all about tanks. Players need to be able to directly control infantry forces - aim, shoot, move, etc infantry units. Not at the ArmA-level of detail, but something simple to add functionality.

Where, in that hour long video does he talk about it?

Posted November 4, 2014 http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/8895-steel-beasts-and-esim-working-with-dcs/?do=findComment&comment=129521

eSim posted it on their forums two years ago.

I'd have to dig, but I believe this was over two years ago. Is this something that's legitimately still in the works or just another forgotten project? Also - Eagle Dynamics turned down eSim (Steel Beasts) request to produce a module. I'm not sure why - I'm not asking, it's not my place - but I'll never understand.

We don't need CA to be a simulation - but there are several game-breaking bugs. I think what we have is something that lands between Steel Beasts and the Battlefield series - which is OK, but the bugs need to go.

That is an interesting perspective, and this is how I currently play the game. There are too many bugs to operate in first person. CA isn't that bad in an RTS capacity. I've made a few maps that have Company Sized groups (~14 vehicles) and they can pathfind decently. I certainly hope not. It has lots of potential, and can dominate the market.

I've seen a lot of unofficial talk on the forums about the direction and future of Combined Arms. People frequently say "they are working on it", but we never see anything official. In a game dominated by flight modules, Combined Arms still feels mostly unfinished and is riddled with several game-breaking bugs: 1. AI Vehicles with no visibility restrictions 2. Projectiles passing through objectives 3. Vehicles getting stuck stuck reloading. Then we have some ugly aspects: 1. No damage models (hit point system) 2. Extremely poor thermals 3. No infantry model - no way to mount/dismount I, as I'm sure many others, are curious as to where this module is going. DCS World has a powerful engine, and Combined Arms has much potential for integration with the many air-assets. Some of us want to see it go further.

Awesome! I also noticed that the Gaz doesnt do well when you land on anything but the tarmac/FARP Grass seems to make the thing bounce 10 feet in the air.

I'm ok with infantry surviving multiple hits - as can be the case in real life - but the hit point locations is what is concerning. It is nearly impossible to hit the infantry units in some of these places, and took me 6-10 bursts of MG fire to get kills - even on units where I knew their hitpoint would be located (in the toes)

Also, http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=167789 This is game breaking stuff for people who want to enjoy Combined Arms.

Thanks for the work around, though. I played a few games last night, restarted after each one, and things were better.

Real units

Another example. Two groups - Group 1, Group 2 SABOT and HE work on all vehicles in Group 1 - EXCEPT the group leader - which doesnt seem to be there. I cannot lase or hit this vehicle. SABOT doesnt work on ANY of the Group 2 vehicles, but HE will work.

I'm trying to find the origin of this bug. The example on the left shows a T72B at 500 meters, but I cant seem to get an accurate lase - lase showing - 1214m? The laser is shooting right through the tank. I was able to reproduce this in the T72B, Leopard, and as shown in the M1A2 - all three laser range finders produced an inaccurate range - as if the target didnt exist. Of course, when I fire at the tank, my round passes straight through the object - both AP and HE rounds. The image on the right shows a tank at 548m, and gives me an accurate lase, then allows me to hitl the tank. The only difference between the two tanks is that the tank shown on the left is the group leader of the tanks used in the example.

I've noticed that there are some serious issues with projectiles passing through objects. Lately this has become apparent with dismounted forces - I'm not sure if its a damage model issue or a projectile model issue - either way its a huge game breaker for ground forces. Testing Conditions Seven tests were conducting using various targets at a 50m increment in ranges from 50m - 300m. Vehicles used; M1A2, Leopard 2, T72B3 Weapons: 762x51 (M240), 762x51 (MG3), 762x54 (PK) Targets: Russian Rifleman, Russian Paratrooper, Insurgent Riflemen Method: Machine gun bursts were fired from head to toe, using a 5-7 round burst. The first burst that killed an object was recorded and a red dot was placed on the model. The photos shown below only show the Russian Rifleman. This is a placeholder, and just an example of WHERE the targets were struck. Test targets are annotated on each photo. Results: Ground forces suffer from game breaking bugs - I'm not sure if this is an issue with the damage model or projectile model. Some targets were killed easily, but others were impossible to kill. In some cases, the only 'hit' area was the toes of an object. ED - can we please have some love for ground forces

Whenever I engage the autostop feature the aircraft starts to shake violently then erupt into flames.

I played a mission last night where the Tactical Commander had a mission briefing How is that possible?

Imagine how we feel playing Combined Arms - its a reaaaaaaally quiet battlefield.