Fri13

Yes, we are in the exactly half of the topic: "In DCS world what real purpose will the hind serve? The reason I ask this question is due to the fact that in DCS world combat is mainly oriented around the ground and air vehicles. What was the last time you really tried to support the infantry in DCS? Yes, we may have 4 9M120 against the ground targets, but that's about it. In contrast, the upcoming Apache will have much more "space" in DCS with up to 16 hellfires on board and various sensors such as AG radar, Datalink, and multiple self-defense capabilities." (half is basically about AH-64 vs Mi-24, but I concentrate to Mi-24 and its orientation for ground attack and how it fits to support ground units like infantry in DCS: Supporting Ground Units -> Ground Units capabilities and limitations relative to Mi-24 -> How it looks in future related to current (soon) Mi-24 weaponry and tactics = Why to buy it today (instead tomorrow when changes are done) -> How will it change in the future.

Yes they have. Why I collected few different interviews to show how things has evolved and got more impressive. ED has taken ground part far more seriously like 7-8 years ago and got to situation where they need to improve so many things that their dreams are only limit now. What multiple people (Wags, Katia, Nick, Simon etc) talk about ED goals in those is very impressive and reveals how challenging and growing projects those are. There is so many great changes to come in the future for helicopter and ground units players.

I am, so your suggestion about otherwise is misplaced. As getting Mi-24P is not going to change anything else we have now. It is that in the future we just can have far more enjoyment. At this moment it doesn't take so much skill at all as it should. That is the problem as it is not about right tactics but simply abusing the currently limited game mechanics and utilizing a proper tactics just gets you more likely killed than succeed (opposite), hence "Facing the Reality" what to expect years old mechanics in ground for those who have not flown at low+slow previously. Again, not about asking schedule. But about connection between Dynamic Campaign <-> Improved AI <-> Damage Modeling <-> Combined Arms, as in the interviews it has been mentioned by Wags that Combined Arms was put on the backburner to speed up other elements, so question is that are those later dropping more likely as a one major patches or in series. Again, not about schedule but more about can we see example improved AI spotting separately from a new damage modeling, and it separately from CA etc?

Rear-seat is responsible for Gun and Rocket delivery, so you get to be that with its CCIP capable gunsight. You can do all that as front-seat but you get fixed gunsight, and you can only use ATGM from the front seat. Considering that you are not going to use ATGM from close ranges, you can assumingly be all the time in the front and then when you starting using ATGM by aiming with the sight the AI will at first phase at least maintain flight for you until you return to fly. So mainly you fly from rear and then sometimes as from front.

You have not talked with the other planets leaders like high ranking officials are...

Not asking at all about the schedule, just that are the AI units logic touched in the dynamic campaign part of the development, if either one are separate process?

Our current problem in the DCS mission designs is that the Anti-Air units are in the airbase, not surrounding areas like building a 50-300 km defense airspace around the base that you have difficulties to penetrate with anything. Right now it is in common servers just flying to airbase and there is like a short range SAM system defending the runways, why people get shot down on short moment after they take-off as enemy can just circle around the airbase waiting players to get up. If all goes better direction, none of the aircraft will be able to do that. You need an army to do so. And that is what Mi-24P will be doing, supporting that army to move on the ground in front line. Attacking on the targets that are harder for the ground units. While being protected by the MiG-29's and SAM systems. Almost any aircraft can dominate a proper small combat group, like have a recon team in AFV and even a two SA342 will take such out unless that is something like a LAV-25 and few Stingers with them. But put any aircraft against properly set army division and they get down sooner than get to release anything. The Mi-24P will do fine when using common DCS style that place a 4 MBT's on the open field and shoot them from the distance. Place anything on the ground that can engage Mi-24 outside its weapons envelopes and it will be engaged as soon it just comes visible. So not even surprise engagements can be used at the moment when everyone knows where it is at that moment.

So Dynamic Campaign will not be including the improved AI and ground units behavior but just a strategic elements? I have remembered it wrong as in 2017 Wags said: "....once we get that done that will translate well to you know the modern aircraft and even the ground vehicles at some point...." https://youtu.be/JhUSSM4a7BU?t=1531

Growling Sidewinder interview with Nick Grey about Dynamic Campaign and AI logic. https://youtu.be/OhpwuAGqstc?t=480 CasmoTV interview with Wags about Dynamic Campaign, UI, AI etc about highest priority. https://youtu.be/wiZ6pq1taCA?t=283 https://youtu.be/wiZ6pq1taCA?t=1832 Grim Reapers interview with Simon about Damage Modeling and Combined Arms. https://youtu.be/zRKL0yZHvwg?t=2866 https://youtu.be/zRKL0yZHvwg?t=3949 https://youtu.be/zRKL0yZHvwg?t=4140 https://youtu.be/zRKL0yZHvwg?t=4364 Here we can see a third party mention of the Damage Modeling WW2 -> Modern. But in their quoted original post from ED, it is not the case of the order: https://stormbirds.blog/2020/10/09/ai-and-damage-models-subject-of-dcs-update/ "All of their released fighters have apparently been already updated and their AI piloted bombers are due to get this upgrade next. Following that, more modern jets will begin to see this technology emerge which should lead to more nuanced damage profiles there too." -> https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/254464-official-news-2020/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-4447624 In a 20th January 2020 Newsletter is mentioned this: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/254464-official-news-2020/?tab=comments#comment-4124781 "Once we and our clients are happy with the warbirds damage model system, we will implement this new damage modelling to the more modern aircraft, ground units, and naval units." Again nothing about the other orders than WW2 first, and after that the rest in general. On later newsletters (7th February 2020) there are other mentions: "Most of the Eagle Dynamics team will be focused on DCS World core to improve performance, lighting, and weather. We will also launch our new damage modelling engine which initially will be for the WWII aircraft. The team is also working hard to improve airfield air traffic control, more life-like AI, new AI units, and a dynamic campaign system." In the 2019 Mudspike interview with Matt Wagner: https://www.mudspike.com/mudspike-ama-with-eagle-dynamics-senior-producer-matt-wagner/ Are there any plans to expand Combined Arms? This hidden gem of a module can really alter the multiplayer landscape with a cunning user at the helm but hasn’t gained a large following. Certainly, but before we can do so, there are other items that first need to be addressed: Detailed damage model system for ground units Improved ground unit AI decision making New and improved ground unit effects A much more detailed ground environment So we are not going to see any new campaign mode or anything about Combined Arms before damage models comes to ground units. And it clearly said that order was WW2 -> Ground -> Modern fighters years back (not just week ago), but everything is subject to change. Just need to find the interview. In the other interviews it has been discussed how they are trying to get the first version of Dynamic Campaign for testing (again, requirement to have those other systems first in place) in this year, but again everything is subject to change. Overall is that changes will be major in the near future, as these things has been in ground work development like since 2014-2016 and couple years for more advanced major work.

Exactly. The vehicle crew roof guns are for self-defense purposes. So if the helicopter will fly 300-500 meters of them other direction and troops are already exposed (spotted etc) then you can try to take them down. But someone needs to pop-up and reveal themselves, vulnerable for a any average soldier in 300-400 meters and sniper up to 600-800 meters when stationary, and you want to be stationary to fire that (H)MG. If the helicopter is coming toward your position in purpose of attack (not at you, but someone in your platoon 100-150 meters away) then you can try to suppress the helicopter by firing at it to disturb its attack and break away. We need AI units to have even a basic logic that when to open fire, and when not to. As at best firing at someone you just reveal your position. And in DCS this can be easily exploited in KA-50 that you fly at proper distance from the expected enemy positions and get them to engage you. Jinking slightly as evasive flight and they don't hit you. You will spot them and then come around to engage them. The longbow radar is not suppose to be so effective. Sure if you have a non-camouflaged vehicles sitting in center of a harvested field, then you get to spot them easily from 3-5 km. But you do that already visually as well. Camouflage the vehicle and radar becomes basically obsolete tool among FLIR, and visual spotting is very challenging. If we would have those vehicles have a logic to withdraw to cover and conceal themselves, the CAS would turn to be totally different experience.

Good to know. As didn't know so exact things for its mechanics than there is a penalty and timer etc. But the point is that penalty for failing the mission is there. If we would have a pilot rank system, that you need to work for. You gain benefits from gaining flight hours, completing missions (like dropping bomb accurately where JTAC requests, or flying flight plan properly etc) and building career, then you build a virtual pilot that you don't want to waste for a stupid death. Like if it would take a 25 hours to get to a good average standing, you totally are not going to kill that virtual pilot at all same manner as you would if you have 15 minutes. And if with 15 minutes you are more about a target practice for anyone else with 5-10 hours, it will require you to put effort to fly missions properly and fear every single engagement that you might die for it. That is why there should be a good balance, and whole system of course be a optional. So those who are willing to go experience what time and effort gets you and how it feels to be worried to be virtually shot down.... The system could even require a reputation system as well where wrong doings are reported and registered and it can have on penalties. Meaning that friendly fires are very bad thing to happen, jumping in landing queue without proper radio communication and permission etc would just push you further away. It could help various virtual squadrons to be participating more to public servers when you can show off the experience and talent and so on. For a fighter pilot it can be easier to avoid getting shot, but helicopter pilot it can be far more dangerous at this moment before we get better AI to control ground units to engage helicopters. As it is far more difficult to build a career as helicopter pilot than it is as fighter pilot.

Thanks. Thought that they would have already counted for that from the start, but maybe the first step was for the small rotors first (like could be nice to see it as well for AGM-62 Wall-Eye generator or the L-39 wind turbine etc.

There is department that will allocate the codes based various purposes and then eventually they get distributed to mission by their area and time so there wouldn't be conflicts. I have somewhere a manual about that process. In the future the laser codes should be automatically set by the ground crew based the sortie for the area etc. So that the AI does it properly and pilot doesn't have any word about it. This would as well require that missions should be planned properly by the pilot or AI (and then only accepted by the pilot) so flight plan and all are properly done and pilot will stick to it and not loiter somewhere else.

Does the new advanced propeller modeling touch the helicopter rotors as well, or do players still need such mods in fuure?

The smoke lasts only like 5 seconds and then it is gone. It is a 6 floor building size and will only block the IR vision for little further period than visual. But it doesn't work really. It is just a reminder "You hit it, but didn't destroy it". A actively used it would be very effective. Especially when they would use it as cover to move around. Your laser mavericks would go dud and fly past with the smoke screen as they lose the spot. The laser guided bombs would drop to last known location. IR mavericks would lose locks and become useless. Visually guiding something would be difficult as you don't see where they would move behind the smoke screen. Now they just sit the 600 seconds (default, you can change it) scattered around as you say and pretends to be in a tower defense game. Like there is one nice simple script to make ground units to stop firing if they get first under fire, like suppressing them with cannon or rockets. It adds little more value for unguided weapons at short ranges when they don't snipe you down on the second.

If we would have proper ground units behavior, you wouldn't be spotting those vehicles so easily. And when they roll behind their cover, they spend there time just enough for gunner to acquire a target and shoot at it, confirm the shot and roll back in the cover. Once the helicopters are spotted (by vehicles crews or someone else informing it to them) they would change tactics, you have people in observation for the ATGM launches even and utilize smoke screens effectively. They might not be able jam your guidance, but they can blind you so you don't know where to aim inside a large smoke screen in witch cover they roll back to cover. This of course if the enemy has not chosen so stupid position that they give for enemy full access to use their longest range weapons to destroy them....

The Escape From Tarkov has 20 minutes penalty when you die. You literally sit in the main screen unable to play with your main character, and you lose everything that you brought with you in the game when connecting. It adds a lot more "fear" (and rage) to players if they fail in the game. Famous Dark Souls game has hideous difficulty level for many, but it is the interesting part really, thanks from copying the original Rogue from 1980 with a permanent death. More you played, better you became, but each time spent to it meant that death is permanent and you will need to start from the begin again. In a RTS games where one can just build and produce infinite amount of units, it becomes quickly boring as the challenge is different than games that you have limited resources. Example for the time of release the Ground Control was major player as you had what you had and you didn't really get more. So you tried to save every and each unit you could as you couldn't just build more. In the last interview from Wags in CasmoTV the talk was about all the background strategical elements from the reinforcements to factories and productions etc. Meaning that the RTS part of the DCS World (Combined Arms) will be (at least should be part) partially with limited units and limited resources and all. What we need in the DCS more and more is that there will be like a 60 various aircraft on the carrier and no more, nothing to add unless someone can fly them from another location there to keep the number up. Like 24 Hornets, four E-2, couple C-2 transporters and few helicopters. In a multiplayer server such would make people to value far more about each airframe they are flying. Just losing them would mean a lot difference at later phase of server mission. Same thing as giving limited amount of missiles would mean every shot should count, and every bomb. There would always be those who wouldn't care do they use 10 fighters for stupid things just to get fancy few kills, why there should be penalties for the player ID what they can do. Like promote players to give them more action time by shortening their routes to fight. Give them more challenging and interesting missions to complete. Little RPG elements here and there and you get people to eventually value more of the time they spend and what they do. Having a such optional server setting that can be enabled for those who are ready for challenge and want to avoid air quake behavior, it could be welcoming for many. The ground units values would change a lot when you can't just spawn more or produce more so quickly. Transporting them from otherside of the map to one side is not an easy task. Plan a routes how to transport them first on trains or roads (we need such cars) and then get them moved closer to required positions etc. A RTS commander on the ground that loses units means they open up possibility for enemy to take advantage of that. But nothing works as long there is no risk to the player itself for losing something. You never can get anything about fear for life, but you can get fear for able to play the game on the server. To have a reputation to be playing with servers and missions that requires higher reputation, as losing such high reputation pilots is threatful for many pilots who care about statics and online ladders comparisons to others. We have various other problems like players jumping on opposite side to take notes where their units are, and then jump back to go attack at them. Again something that would be impossible like with a ED ID to be used for server side registration of virtual pilots, that you need to pick up your side on the server you play. Adding various other elements like real fog of war, that no pilot can see everything than just the mission they are opting-in, intelligence reports are vague and they need to do the work. So limiting the access to instant all-around information would be impossible even on the ground commanders who only knows what their units does and that with delayed communications and vague reports etc.

I guess so, I hope so. But I can only accept the possibility that their programmers documentation becomes.... Acceptable. But I do hope it would be well done.

What is more of a problem between ED and third party developers to understand the changes to come and versions that will remove something. Nice way is that when a something better is developed, it will be introduced first for moment aside of the old one. And then old is moved in given time frame, giving developers time to adapt to new way. This is example use in the Linux where periods are 3/6/12 months and then even 2-4 years own steps. Everyone gets the changes, they have time to port to new and once the old code has turned to be obsolete, it gets removed. If someone still has not done their work for major changes, it is their fault for not following what happens. Usually such scenarios happens where losses are too high are when intelligence fails (and it always does...) and troops commander underestimates enemy or overestimates own troops. Doesn't see out of the box or doesn't react to very obvious threat. There are always cases where other side has been slaughtered, like defenders has been commanded to hold as reinforcements are just coming. And then enemy suddenly has heavy artillery in their arsenal or air support and majority of defenders are killed before they could do anything. The WW2 did teach many things, shaking so old ideas away. And since the WW2 things the proper european level modern full war scenarios has not happen. So tactics and all has been adjusted to different kind ones. DCS World can not provide so adaptable and skilled AI that in reality there is. But key thing is as well that we need to have AI that does not cheat, that is actually fair and does mistakes. Why IMHO the AI that is controlling each unit individually, should not know anything more than they should. So the AI doesn't know that how many enemies there is behind the ridge, if there is any even if the intelligence say so. It shouldn't know it is getting flanked if there is no one spotting the flanking element and warning the AI. But the AI should make mistakes like recognizing flanking possibility and preparing for it, or be skilled and clever that prepares for it already but does know how to react to it by not spreading forces too thin. Eventually I see DCS World Combined Arms as RTS game for human players. Not so much for "super intelligent AI". Like if the current AI is so stupid that it just moves as waypoints go and do what waypoint tells to, having only own capability to fire with some default settings. But outside of it, there is no intelligence. Like have a group moving over field and if they get engaged, they scatter for 600 seconds and sit there as ducks in open field being shot at. Where we can see many things are broken in the AI way of thinking, starting from the old way of groups + waypoints. AI shouldn't use anymore groups, they should be units. So copy the real military hierarchy to be used and AI has possibilities to start being more flexible. Make basic rules like how to send first scouts a head to check the positions, instead moving main forces straight to be killed. Basic logic like if the open field needs to be crossed (instead going around) then send scouts first and gather other units ready to support from own side. First writing basic logic to work as individual unit, then as pair, then as squad/platoon and eventually as larger units. It will get far in basic manner. It can't cover everything but it is a far better than what we have now. But developing such framework for AI is what would brake so many things. It doesn't mean that waypoints and current group thinking can't be maintained aside for year or two, but new framework needs to be made primary new way to do things. In a RTS games we can either have this waypoint+group thinking, but it is like a old Red Alert kind style where you select bunch of units and command to go somewhere. No matter how stupid it is, but support units goes first and spreadhead units can come last. The AI needs to understand that what is required to form different elements and make those available to player to command. So if player selects a recon unit and tells it to get one position, the AI needs to know what belongs to that recon unit and what routes it should move to get to commanded location. As player shouldn't command waypoints but give goals. Like mark a bridge as the crossing point, and set the area in place to be scouted and at what time it needs to be done. The players needs to move away from the old current method as well, and move more to the real military ways of thinking. The easy part is that none of this is hard to find out, as it is out there in the libraries for basic military lessons. Hard part is to actually implement it but that is the programmers work, and it is actually very easy as real military command structure and tactics/strategies are so well documented to lowest level that it is just thinking it aloud. And great thing in DCS World is that so much micromanagement parts can be dropped off. Like there is no need to have anything about individual soldier daily tasks to be modeled that things get easier.

P is far easier to make than a V, where the WSO would have been required to be spotting, aiming and firing a gun at the targets around your frontal hemisphere. And do that by analyzing the target type in proper time (search specific targets or recognize specific type among others) and engage it. In P it is easier as AI doesn't need to care about the rotating gun. And anyways such is already in game in Mi-24V as AI unit (and all units). What comes to flying, we need AI that would be better at low altitudes. You can't have AI flying a helicopter at 80 meter altitude like now because they don't dare to go lower and actually try to find the spots to engaged targets. But KA-50, SA342 Gazelle, OH-58 Kiowa and AH-64 requires this more than a Mi-24 pilot that is more about how current AI flies. For almost two years I have been flying in formation with Mi-24V as AI, and got custom to many of its flaws but as well surprising good things. The most annoying part will be the relationship between AI and player in spotting. As that makes big difference between flying co-op and flying alone. Where in Co-Op with other player you are talking to other about spotted things, the AI is like "Target 50 km East!" and you are like "??????" Or best thing in co-op is that you can actually talk the other player on the target like "1'clock, about 1 km, right of the small tree group, see it?" Where with AI you are "How I can tell you to look at there!?!?". One key things I think we should have, kind a cheat. Is like a green HMS circle in a Su-27S or MiG-29S that you could press button to see it, and then use that to point out to AI that where to fly and where to look. Just a generic 5-10 degree would be enough even for that. Just easily visually aim by giving heading like "20 degree to right" and AI would concentrate their search in that direction, or they would fly to that direction. Same way as you would with a player talk "Fly around that field" or "The target was somewhere there". Then have just a radio call list kind interface (but in pie-shape like no Jester has) to set target types to engage or altitude to fly or maneuver to perform. I would never expect AI to be so good that you can fly the mission without trying to guide it to do something. Why I think that we seriously need assisting features to command the AI easily. I am not fond of the old games style to have keyboard commands "Go Left" or "Go Down" and "Target SAM" kind things, As you ended up a lot to micromanage the AI pilot to get basics done. Only so much can be done for AI as Close Air Support is especially dynamic element where you need to be able adapt to new threats and find new ways to fly to avoid getting shot down, or even worse - be somewhere else than delivering support in time. It would be nice to hear if the ED would program the Ai fly the real patterns, maneuvers and tactics, and you would get basic introduction for those and then have idea that what AI is going to do, or what it can do and then do so. Even more challenging will be the coordination with the ground units. As you would need to be constantly talking with the officer responsible to command units to attack and get the fire support on moment it is required. That is demanding part. Like how to get a AI on ground to talk to player in the aircraft, without them starting to scribble a GPS coordinates every and each time. As nothing is as stupid as "Enemy in GRID 3423 2231". If the AI ground units would use smoke grenades (those small hand throwables, not those 300 meter tall infinite fuel ones) to mark their position, and then tell the enemy position from that as bullseye call "Enemy armor 120 degree from our location, about 500 meters". And once you see the smoke, you know from where to attack to where.

No, as the symbols and their status there are set by the intelligence officers before pilot enters the cockpit. There is no datalink to update those units positions or types in flight.

ED takes own cut from all module sales there happens. That is put to DCS World development and support all modules. And problem with ED is that majority of it is still based very old legacy codes and designs, and they can not just start updating individual parts without breaking backward compatibility each time. Like now is the 2.7 coming after two days and it will brake every mission custom/tweaked weathers such way that all needs to be revisited and checked and adjusted. When later the new core features comes like new communications, new voice overs for everything etc, it will mean that things get broken again. When the new AI comes with RTS elements and such, it means again that everything brakes down. Hopefully we get away from legacy idea of ground units moving by the waypoints, and we move toward real command structure where you set mission goals and common doctrinal strategies and tactics and AI will work around all by itself, instead using waypoints and advanced waypoint rules and some trigger zones and scripts etc. If AI is wanted to be Intelligent, it needs to figure out by itself everything what needs to be done to achieve the goals. Like if you tell specific unit ("3rd Company of X" etc) to defend a 5 km wide part and tell that expected enemy direction is South-West, then the AI needs to know by itself how to move all units for defense in primary positions and where are each unit secondary positions, what are ROE for range, enemy type/amount or actions etc. The AI needs to know how to adjust things based their mission status, as if enemy overwhelms with 5:1 ratio it is then no use to be there to die for nothing when position is anyways lost no matter how player commands them to sacrifice themselves for nothing. The DCS World needs to be worked to support every other module. But if they do it, it better be done once so things gets badly broken only once instead once every year. Doesn't really work that way. Example, you would want a better AI logic for SAM systems. So you give ED 50€ for that. ED needs to first improve the whole AI logic system for all units, but before they can do that they need to rewrite the game terrain engine to add a required new path finding technology, but no one wanted to fund that.... It is just best to give money for the ED and let them to use it as they seem to be best bit. And then just vote for wishlists and discuss that how things should work.

Some module makers has said that they have prepared all missions and campaigns for 2.7 new weather. Nothing else. Meaning that they have likely required to open every mission and select proper weather for it and save it. This is required to be done again when a new weather options comes available as then makers can adjust wanted weather to missions. This is nothing compared to future when a dynamic campaign system comes, as all new AI logic, RTS elements etc comes out. That likely requires to redo everything as they are already doing thousands of new voice covers for AI and all. So if new clouds is 2.7, then new AI will be likely 3.0 level change. But this is business as usual when you are dependent to a second party engine and all. You just need to rework if you want to keep selling stuff. I am not worried about third party community missions and such to get broken. Load a mission, select weather template and save. There could be a converter that will set some wanted template as batch and then have most work right. But if someone has been very specific with things.... Recheck. But this doesn't mean that wind settings can't be converted. Just the visual look of clouds as moment. So if someone wanted to have thunderstorm or specific altitude of clouds, those are difficult to match 1:1. Likely system can check "Cloud density 9, use template Yz", but again that likely does not help to get proper results if not using official template already. As API gets changed, question is can old things be used someway? And I would guess that once we get custom weather adjustments (once they are done) and API is finished, ED will document it. Weather can be nasty when you don't have control of it .

You don't mainly use VKB software for anything else than setting up how the Windows see the device inputs. You do all the functions in the DCS World itself (best for all modules in all gaming devices). If you play OLD games, like 90's or what does not understand DirectX and so on, but has lots of keyboard functions, then you need to use some software like Joystick Gremlin with Joy2Key that allows you to bind keyboard buttons to joystick inputs as if the game accepts something like 3 axis and 5 buttons only. In DCS you just go through the normal configuration to bind what you want and where. All your profiles are saved by DCS by device and by date as well. So you can copy and paste those profiles between computers or installations.

Install that.