Callsign112

Bobsledding in an Abrams!.... Yeah there are a few obvious things missing from the physics model there.

I think more than anything, your suggestion is what is most needed. I think they would probably have to make the necessary changes to both the mission editor and the maps as far as restricted areas are concerned. But adding this capability to DCS would make the addition of things like above ground fortifications and runways possible.

I think the problem in trying to explain what we want is with the bold text. I'm not sure why, but everyone seems to associate the "reload command" with replenishing the ready rack, when I think it is probably meant to just reload the cannon. This is what we have currently in-game: -The cannon is automatically loaded after each shot. We can fire all 42 rounds with the Abrams for example without hitting the "CTRL + R" command once. The only thing that changes is the reload time after the ammo type being used is depleted in the ready rack. This makes sense and is reasonably well modeled. The only change that could be made for more realism would be to differentiate between reserve ammo stored in the turret, and ammo stored in the hull. Some tanks require that the turret be locked in certain positions to access ammo storage in the hull. Keeping with the Abrams example, the last 6 rounds should take longer to access. -"E" key to change ammo types. As I have already said, if you have AP loaded but hit the "E" key to select HEAT without reloading, you will use a HEAT round and not an AP. This is wrong and should be corrected. You should have to press both "E" and "CTRL + R" before it would affect the ammo count for HEAT. -"CTRL + R" keys to reload cannon. I now realize this has nothing to do with replenishing the ready rack. I believe it is meant to simply reload the cannon in scenarios where you want to change ammo types. But again, it's function doesn't seem to be accurate. Using the reload command on a fresh tank (10/14-AP), I get the 7-second reload timer. The question is "what is being modeled"? Does the 7-seconds simulate the loader replacing the AP shell with another shell from the ready rack, or is the same shell being removed and reloaded? Using the reload command after I fired 10 AP shells (1/14-AP), I get the same 7-second timer. This implies that the model is simulating a single shell being removed and reloaded again. But after firing 11 AP shells (0/14-AP) and I hit the reload command again, I still get the 21-second timer. This is wrong and should be corrected. After firing 11 AP shells we get the 21-second timer to simulate transferring ammo from the right storage rack to the loader. But once that shell is loaded, if I now hit the reload command the sequence should be completed in 7-seconds because the cannon already has an AP shell loaded. The model works correctly though when one ammo type is depleted in the ready rack, and you press "E" to select the ammo type that isn't. Use all AP rounds in the ready rack (0/14-AP) and after the 21-second reload is completed, press "E" to change to HEAT and then press the reload command and it completes in 7-seconds. Yes, this is exactly what needs to be done. An additional command needs to be added to replenish the ready rack.

Okay so using the M1A2 as the example, I tried to piece together a quick summary of what happens in DCS, and how it could be improved. I quoted the earlier post of yours to try and highlight the problem, because as you pointed out, on the surface it appears to work correctly when it actually doesn't. I hope I don't make this overly complicated, but just a heads up, I am finding it a little hard to put into words. In short, the "CTRL + R" command doesn't do anything other than play the countdown timer animation. I believe there are 3 racks in the M1A2. 2 in the rear turret and a lower rack in the hull. The ready rack holds 18 rounds and is behind the loader for immediate access. The semi-ready rack is behind the commander and also holds 18 rounds. The lower hull rack holds 6 for a total of 42 rounds. This is modeled correctly in DCS which shows 11AP/7HEAT in the ready rack and 14AP/10HEAT in reserve (semi-ready/hull storage). After each shot is fired, the loader takes fresh ammo from the ready rack located directly behind him to load the cannon. We see reload time represented in-game as a 7-second countdown timer. If all of the ammo in the ready rack gets consumed during a battle, the loader would then have to wait for the commander to pass him a fresh round from the semi-ready rack in order to load the cannon. We see this represented in-game as a 20-second countdown timer to simulate the increased time it takes to transfer ammo from the storage rack behind the commander over to the loader. The game however does not model the increased time it would take to load the 6 rounds stored in the hull. But in general, as long as the player in DCS combined arms never hits the "CTRL" + R" command, everything works pretty much as you would expect. The first 18 shots fired would have a much faster reload time than the remaining 24 shots. But imagine the scenario where 6AP, and 2HEAT rounds are used during the course of a battle. After the threat has been dealt with, the loader would want to replenish his ready rack before the next battle starts. So the commander would transfer the 6AP, and 2HEAT rounds from the semi-ready rack to the loader who would then secure them in the ready rack directly behind him. This is what the command "CTRL + R" is supposed to simulate. After the battle but before the transfer to replenish the ready rack, the ammo counter would look like this Ready Rack: 5AP/5HEAT SEMI-Ready Rack: 14AP/10HEAT After the transfer, the ammo counters should look like this Ready Rack: 11AP/7HEAT SEMI-Ready Rack: 8AP/8HEAT But all that happens in-game is we see the countdown timer meant to simulate the increased time it takes to transfer the ammo, but the ammo counters don't actually update. And the problem with the reload command doesn't end there. Take another scenario, The loader already has an AP shell in the cannon when the commander calls HEAT for the next reload. What we would do in-game is hit the "E" key to change ammo types so that the next reload is made with HEAT. The cannon still has an AP shell loaded though. So if the ammo count for the ready rack was 5AP, and 7HEAT (5AP includes the round loaded in the cannon), after the shot was fired and the cannon was reloaded with HEAT, the ammo count should now be 4AP, and 7HEAT. But what actually happens in-game when you hit the "E" key to change ammo types, is it affects the ammo count for the type you switched to instead of the ammo type that was actually loaded. Again, this is where the "CTRL + R" command would normally be used. If you want the ammo type to change after the next shot, the player should simply hit the "E" key to make it so after the round that was already loaded gets used. If you want to actually change ammo types before the next shot, the player would first hit the "E" key, then hit the reload command, wait for the required time to preform the reload, then fire when locked on.

They updated the community about Ai infantry/deck crew improvements last October. You can read about it here: Regarding insurgent vehicles/ground unit improvements, I am sure they are coming based on the growing interest in rotary-winged aircraft.

@Wychmaster & @Apocalypse31: Unless I misunderstood the initial request, would it help if the interested community members got together to document how 5 (max) different types of vehicles work, and then give that to @NineLine to submit as a request. It sounds like he needs to give specific examples just to submit the request. So are we happy with the way WWII tanks work? If anything needs to be tweaked, all we need to do is describe it using one example. Do the same for modern era MBT, vehicles with auto-loaders, vehicles with rocket propelled weapons ect... Anyone with real life experience, or knowledge on any of these vehicle systems should offer their input.

Not soon enough! If you haven't already done so, consider the MiG/CEII, or both. We need all the push we can muster!

+1

I don't know how big the team is at ED, but I really think they need to consider expanding it if the hope is that we would ever see something like this in the near future. But yeah sign me up!

You have already received some very good advice, and some very generous offers. The DCS free trial is also excellent and really worthwhile taking advantage of. But as you have already noticed, DCS World is not a one page book. You could spend an infinite amount of time perfecting just one module. If you want to vary your experience a little, or just take more time to get some of the DCS World basics down including setting up your system, the two free aircraft that came with your DCS download are well suited for this purpose. Welcome and enjoy the experience.

Something in what you said there doesn't ring true though for me. You say it isn't about the $15, but about the perception of fairness. So in other words they feel that they are not getting their monies worth, which is like saying its about the $15. And I don't know why it is, but every time the assets pack is mentioned regardless of the reason or purpose, this point gets brought up in connection with another WWII SIM. Its almost like there is an unspoken comparison being purposely orchestrated into the discussion. I personally don't have the same perception, and in fact think the Assets pack adds a lot of value for me. But then again, I'm also a CA user which allows me to drive the assets and get into the ground war more. This is something that is not available on any other platform, and its a feature I support because I would like to see it develop further. But in terms of value, I think the members of your squad have to ask themselves why they are here? There must be a reason why they purchased at least one of the DCS WWII planes. Regarding the pace of development, I agree that things seem to progress a lot slower than I would have ever imagined, but that problem is not isolated to DCS alone. The other SIM has the exact same issue, and maybe even worse.

There have been a few really good suggestions, but the Invader would probably top the list for a lot of people I am sure. Hope we see it soon! And I really get what your saying about the co-op mission thing. But if the assets are so mission critical to co-op game play, I don't understand how an assets pack ($15) changes all that? I mean, after spending hundreds if not thousands on the setup to fly/drive/shoot in DCS, I find it hard to believe the same guy would draw the line at $15 for an assets pack, especially when he/she admittedly sees them as being important to the flying/driving/shooting. I am curious to know, how large is your group and how many in the group don't have the assets pack?

Fair point, the problem is that would add value only for the people that didn't purchase it. For the people that did purchase it, your suggestion would actually take value away. I'm interested in knowing what would add value. If you could have a must have asset added to the pack, what would it be?

Ouch!

I know your right, but still can't help wonder if there is any chance we see something this year. Just went back to review the mini roadmap they provided at the end of Q3 2021, and it seems possible that we will. It seems they had about 2 thirds of the work done after working more than 2 years on it. Another 10 months or so should be able to bag the remainder is my guess. I think I can keep myself occupied with a couple DCS modules till then

Yeah I think the free trial thingy is a really good effort on ED's part. But I see it as being more valuable for people that have been around for awhile and already know how DCS works. Not to say that people just starting out can't/don't/wont benefit from the free trial, but if your relatively new to DCS World I think the two free planes included with the DCS download offer a better introduction experience. First of all they are free and pose no time limits. Take for example someone that has no real-world experience in aviation with only a limited experience in other flight SIM's. I think that person will get a lot more out of exploring with the Su-25T over several months as opposed to getting free access to the A10C for a couple of weeks. Just reading through the user manual and getting your system setup the way you want can take days if not weeks sometimes.

I agree, its time to water the horse a little. I think we are saying almost the same thing really, in just slightly different ways. Your point is well taken, and I would agree that anyone can get a DCS modules and learn to be proficient in it given enough time and patients. If your interested in the A10C and your not worried that you could loose interest if the going gets tough for a little while, then simply spend the $80 and get to it. Unless of course you are interested in the slightly different context the A10A offers in that role, then I think the A10A/FC3 is definitely worth looking at. And as you said, the FC3 modules are supposed to be an easier option. In the case of the OP where he has both the A10C and the FC3, starting with the easier A10A to learn the ground attack role better before moving on to the more complex A10C is certainly an option worth considering. There is no right or wrong way to do this, there is only what works for each individual player. Some of these modules can require a lot of work to learn, so the key IMO is to keep it interesting so that you keep at it.

Getting back on topic of the thread, it would sure be nice to get an update on where things are.

You make some very good points, but I would like to just highlight that not every one is as motivated as you are. You could probably learn any of the DCS modules faster than I could just because you are so motivated. Where I disagree with your view is the value FC3 modules have in helping learn and build interest. For example you might see the nav system in the A as being completely different to what you would use in the C, but there are bound to be a lot of overlapping core principles between the two. And learning one will definitely make learning the other more easy. Something else you may not realize, there are no simplified FM in FC3. All of the FC3 modules have a PFM except for the Su-25 which has an AFM. So learning to fly the A10A should be very relevant in terms of building experience as a stepping stone to learning the A10C. If I am not mistaken, that is the point behind the FC3 modules.

This was really well said. I think the point here is that the OP already acknowledged the complexity in learning the A10C, and that he already has both FC3 and the A10C. An important part about learning is that everyone does it at different rates, and it is usually very strongly linked to the level of interest/motivation of the learner. There is no doubt that anyone who really wants to could take any of the modules available in DCS and keep working at them until they reach their level of desired proficiency. But there is also something to be said about taking a more stepped approach, especially if it helps maintain/develop the users interest. The key is not to get overwhelmed to the point you lose interest.

+1

+1

+1 on the drag and select. We need this so bad. You should be able to see the ROE if you have CA from the F10 map, as you can adjust it there. But I noticed sometimes when I set ROE in the mission editor that the unit doesn't follow the way I set it. I will have to add this to a bug thread with a track at some point. But I am wondering if alarms sounding when units finish/get shot/detect enemy wouldn't be overly complicated especially with large missions? Some good ideas though.

You raise a really good point, and one that would be hard to argue against. The concept of having a separate aircraft for training in a computer simulation doesn't carry the same meaning it does in the real world. But it still does help learning. A big part of learning comes from seeing slight differences in something over multiple encounters, or through repetition with multiple systems. Like differences between two versions of the same jet, or between a jet trainer and a full blown fighter, or like in your example, practicing in the same module over and over again. The Mustang trainer for example is purely part of a business model. Its purpose was to help develop your interest in DCS World. But at the same time, it also helped those that practiced with it enough to first develop the interest to learn the Mustang. If that person becomes interested enough to go on and buy the full Mustang module, he/she will not only already be able to fly and land it, but the slight differences between the two will help highlight further learning. When something is perceived as being too difficult, it destroys the intrinsic motivation to learn. I completely understand how and why the OP finds the A10C complex. I think the OP's main goal should be to try and get over that hump to give his interest a boost. This is not an uncommon concept in learning SIMs like DCS World. As you suggested, you should first learn things like startup, taxi, take-off, and landing before learning how to fight. And yes you can simply do the same thing in the FF Mustang, but you don't need the added complexity when all you want to do is develop interest. I think that is the value of trainers in a SIM like this. They water it down a bit, to make it more manageable, so that it is easier to develop interest. I think your "how do you eat an elephant" example is probably one of the best analogies for training modules in a computer simulation. They help simplify the process of learning complex systems. Because at the end of the day, ED loses a customer and the community loses a member when the barrier to developing enough interest is too high.

1 and 2 are out of necessity. In other words, we can only make do with what we have. 3 is simply the request meant to address the issues of 1 and 2. In other words, asking for the PzIII, Ju-87, G6, maps that better represent all fronts... what ever is meant to give us those options. But I see historical accuracy as an interest point. It is very important that it is there, but the bigger point for me is how to build a stronger case for DCS WWII. Adding a Stuka to the lineup takes nothing away from historical accuracy, but DCS WWII will be missing that element of history until it gets added. The same can be said for every other plane missing from DCS WWII like the Me-262. As a combat simulator that specializes in jet warfare, I would have thought the Me-262 would be very high on the list of things to do not just because it was part of the kick-starter, but because of what it would represent to DCS World in general. And a server could simply lock certain planes out if historical match ups are the flavor of the day, but you can't fly something that doesn't exist. Personally, I think it would have been more ideal to have a map of France that included both the Maginot line and the Atlantic wall instead of just Normandy so that it could be used from start to finish, but these things also have a context to how they came about. So we can't really fault whatever decision was taken back then, all we can do is look forward and plan for the future. Its not that I don't appreciate the point your making, its that I think DCS WWII is going to have to break out of Normandy if it wants to appeal to a larger audience. The Mariana Islands will help, but there is so much more.