Callsign112

Interesting, which vehicle and map, I would like to see if I can duplicate. They might ask for a track in order to officially look into this though.

+1 and I agree with your view point, but what all of these discussions boil down to is really just a question of the business model ED uses. For me it really wouldn't matter if they package assets with another module, or sell them separately, I would still have to support it if I want to see DCS World continue to grow. When I first got into DCS, I looked at the cost of the maps and tech packs as the price of admission. Yes there is a lot of value and enjoyment that can be had by simply downloading the free to play base game, but 2 free maps and 2 free planes wouldn't be enough for me. I couldn't use DCS World the way I want without the add-on maps and tech packs I purchased. But I fully agree with you, and think we are really saying the same thing in 2 slightly different ways. Regardless of how the chargeable features are presented to the public, it is ultimately the level of community support of those features that will secure their development. Maybe that is why the we often hear about the need for military clients, because general public support by itself isn't enough to see things through.

I think upyr1 is pointing out what has been repeated by so many here, and I get why people would feel like that. You buy an F18 and a map to fly it on correctly expecting that you should be able to do just that, and you can actually in SP mode. The problem starts when you want to enter a MP server that has assets added. So the source of the emotions that erupt when you seemingly can't fly the jet you bought on the map you bought to fly it on, even though it is a MP setting is understandable, but is it reasonable? You wouldn't boycott a company that manufactures SUV's just because they allow some drivers to go off road, just like you wouldn't expect Chevy to throw in a Blazer just because you bought a Corvette. I think the questions these type of discussions really need to address should be more about what we all want/expect DCS World to look like, and less about whether we think assets should be a standalone product, packaged with something else, or made for free. So the question I would like to ask the community is regardless of whether you purchased a single module, all of them, or non, do you want/expect DCS World to continue improving in areas such as special effects for explosions of land and buildings, sounds, Ai behavior, map texture, VR support, number and type of Ai assets available, weather, lighting, damage/collision models ect... Note: I have not included the plane/helicopter modules on purpose to avoid anyone who purchases a flying module from raising the argument that they feel they are entitled to improvements and add-ons to their purchased module. But if you answered yes to even just one of the above items, then I would encourage you to consider how you expect your desired improvement to come about? Is it fair for anyone to buy a single/map, and then expect that the entire rest of the digital combat simulator should not only be provided for free, but the whole kit is expected to improve and get more and more immersive with each update. Just the maintenance issues alone for any given map are a considerable undertaking, I don't see how we as a community could possibly expect all the assets needed to populate those maps to make them real immersive environments would be added for free.

+1 Very good post, you touch on what I think is the key issue with CA,... its use. In SP where you are not in competition with anyone, the best thing to do obviously is to include a single Game Master slot so that you can control both red and blue teams as you see fit. You could include any of the other slots including "Pilot can control" if you want to challenge yourself in a certain way, but as a single player you basically own the map. I think the intended purpose of the Game Master slot though is for teaching. You could use the Game Master slot to observe and instruct/interact with real players that are either working together against Ai forces, or battling each other. But I think where CA can really make a difference is in MP, whether that is setting up a 1v1 to play with a friend, or a much larger group split into two teams, or working in unison against Ai forces. I am not including a MP server where people can join randomly on either side because I am not sure it has been refined enough to work in this environment. I am not a MP player so I don't know for sure, but based on what others are reporting that seems to be the case. Although the recently announced WWII server put up by a well known YouTuber might be a good reason why it should be implemented as an important part of that environment too. But going back to your point about dynamic campaigns and the ability to stop flying, hop in a tank to do a certain objective, then hop into something else to do another thing and so on, you can actually already do that in the CA we have today. All you have to do is include the type of slots to meet the needs of the mission you are trying to build. Whether the mission is 1v1, or 10v10, or any number vs Ai, simply include the slots for the number of intended players with the mission objectives in mind. If you want vPilot players to also be able to control ground units, make sure the appropriate box is selected in the same CA screen you are assigning the slots in. If you want vPilots to be able to join as just a pilot in the mission, then simply include the number of needed aircraft in the mission editor and make sure that you have them set to either client or player. You are probably well aware of this, but for anyone new, or hasn't actually used CA: -Game Master slot allows you to take direct control of all units on the map from both teams (red and blue). Can also control all units red and blue from the F10 map (set path and speed/assign targets). The Game Master can also see all units even when fog of war is turned on. -Tactical Commander slot allows you to take direct control of all units from your own coalition. Can also control all units from same coalition on the F10 map. The Tactical Commander cannot see enemy units until spotted when fog of war is turned on. -JTAC/Operator slot allows you to take direct control of same coalition units only. This slot cannot control any units from the F10 map, and cannot see enemy units until spotted when fog of war is turned on. -Regardless of the slot being occupied, when directly controlling a unit that is part of a group, you can control the other vehicles in the group by accessing the command menu with the "/" key, or using the group command using the "G" key. To answer your question regarding direct control of Ai units and how it affects the Ai logic: -For groups of vehicles that have been given predefined way points to follow in the mission editor, if you take direct control of the lead unit (#1 icon in its lable) and then leave it to take control of another unit, the predefined way points assigned in the mission editor will be cancelled and the group of vehicles will remain in the same spot the player left them. You would have to either take direct control again to move them to another location on the map, or reassign way points to the group from the F10 map as either a Game Master, or Tactical Commander. If you take direct control of a vehicle in a group other than the group lead and then leave it to take control of another unit, the vehicle you just left will follow the predefined way points again to rejoin its group. In other words, taking direct control of a groups lead vehicle cancels any predefined way points. Taking control of any non-group leads will allow the unit to rejoin its group after you give up control. And this takes us back to your point about CA use. CA actually has a very powerful interface in terms of supporting missions/game play. The user has to take the time to consider how CA plugs into the actual event of game play in order to understand this. If you want a 3v3 group of players to only battle each other from in-game so that each player remains invisible to his opponents until contact is made, then you would obviously want to set the mission up to include 3 blue and 3 red JTAC/Operator slots with fog of war turned on. If the desire is to give one player on each team the ability to respond tactically from the F10 map so that he/she can move forces around as the battle develops, then you would add 1 Tactical Commander slot and 2 JTAC/Operator slots for each team. This is probably overstating the obvious, but the point is CA is a very well thought out part of DCS and its ability to add real depth to game play I feel is underutilized/misunderstood.

+1. There is a lot there, and certainly more could be added, but the point is well made. Ground/sea operations should be given more attention as they are a major part of the air operations that take place. This is certainly the case for SP today, and the only reason it isn't a major part of MP today is because of the limited way it is represented. The growing interest in helicopter modules is just an example, and a very good reason why the ground war needs to be better represented.

Amen!

Too funny. I just noticed this! Nice one ED. Merry everything, and Happy always!

That is all good Silver, and I am not in disagreement with you. As I have said in numerous posts before, I really appreciate the insight you offer and the efforts you make for this community. I am not speaking for anyone else, but I am pretty sure there are a lot of people here that feel the same way. You and I do not ED make! The onus is on ED to live up to any stated intentions. This is just a wish list thread where we are discussing a wish. That being improvements to the CA module.

I think it has already been well explained, but to demonstrate, just add the "will fall" part that you left out. Anyway you make a good point, your a Vpilot and you don't want ED to cater to anyone else but Vpilots. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, I'm just saying as another Vpilot that I would like to see the digital combat simulator simulate actual combat.

Well said, except you left me wondering if you aren't going between what needs to be fixed, and what could/should be added. VR support is clearly stated as not being currently supported in CA. The impression that leaves at least me with, if not the entire community, is that it is planned. But yeah there does seem to be a bit of what you are suggesting. One day their planning on fixing it, and the next day they aren't. Wonder what's behind the influence with that?

I agree Silver, CA does what it is advertised as being able to do, and I think as a module it has gotten a bad wrap because it actually does a lot of them really well. Some of those features however don't work properly, while others could use improvements. But weren't you the one that posted something about planned updates to the things we are discussing here? The thing being discussed here is not really different then the tens of thousands of posts that are discussing the same thing for other modules.

Don't know if you noticed, but you never answered my question, and now your judging someone else for not answering a question that wasn't stated. Even if the OP meant FPS, his request on the wish list doesn't state that explicitly. He simply said full fidelity ground units using proper infantry. Proper infantry can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people. I didn't respond to your post the first time around because it would be taking the discussion in a direction it doesn't need to go, but just wanted to make sure you are aware of the above. I do get your point though regarding ED and their installed user base.

I hear you @LooseSeal, at the moment the only work around we have are templates. I say "the only", but realize they work very well. Next time you have to set up an infantry group, don't forget to save it as a template when your done. It will save you a lot of time in your set ups. I have infantry groups of 50+ men. If I had to rebuild that from scratch every time,... yeah I get it. You can also make a template of one unit type, place it in your new mission and then change the group to another type and resave as a new template. But I agree, any and all improvements in ground units is certainly welcome on this end.

@upyr1, @Tank50us, I didn't get the reference to the aircraft arming window earlier, but I like it. I also think upyr1's suggestion for both is a good one, and think the most basic unit still has to be the single unit because you might want something smaller than a squad. One of the most important features of Ai infantry IMO is the ability to move them according to your needs. Like right now this is IMO one of the biggest weaknesses in CA. But yeah, the arming window is an incredibly good idea. Just imagine if we could access something like that right from within the mission editor. After selecting the desired infantry unit/nation and setting the group size, it opens up in a load out window where you can then select the specific load out for each unit in the group/squad. This would work whether the group consisted of a single soldier, or a whole squad. There would probably be a limit to the max size of a single squad though in terms of performance, as well as a maximum number of squads in use at any one time, but yeah something like that would work very well.

Having predefined squads instead of individual units would be a step backwards in terms of functionality IMO. What we currently have is actually better than the suggestion in the bold text, because we can change the unit to anything we want without the need for a table/editor. All that is missing from the infantry side of things is variety. But if you wanted to make a group of planes, tanks, ships consisting of different types, all you have to do once you created the group size is simply select each unit and change it to the desired type.

Everyone here seems to have jumped the OP for wanting an FPS, but what I read is full fidelity ground units using proper infantry. The OP doesn't really explain what is meant by "proper infantry". Proper infantry for me would be the Ai infantry we already have, but with more functionality. Nothing ground breaking there, and it certainly wouldn't require an entire rewrite of graphics engines... But infantry aside, in terms of the kind of game DCS is, ground/sea/air units can already co-exist on the same map at the same time. You can shoot at me with your ground attack aircraft, and I can shoot back at you while driving a vehicle equipped with surface-to-air capabilities. I get why the bold text above is the main concern for most here, but why should the focus be just aircraft? Why shouldn't the focus include helicopters and the other ground elements they come in close contact with? The simple fact is, it's not a matter of being possible, it is a matter of the amount of time put into making it happen. There is a long list of outstanding issues with some of the DCS plane models. They are not outstanding issues because it was not possible to solve them, they are outstanding issues because ED has not been able to take the time to address them yet.

Well you can control ground units from a plane if you have CA, but I don't know if that also includes other planes. Certainly shouldn't be a problem to add it if it doesn't.

I'm perfectly fine if the tree is removed from the surface detail folder. Maybe while they are at it, other more pressing issues like problems with airports, roads, defense structures that are absent/incorrectly modeled on other maps could also be fixed.... But in terms of an eye-sore, I would take a 1000 year old Banyan tree over pyramid shaped land formations and sink holes as seen on other maps any day. But I hear you, the fact that it isn't there IRL raises a valid argument to have it removed.

Well a quick google search tells us that a Banyan tree can grow as tall as 100 feet, and the Marianas Islands themselves are between 5 and 30 million years old. The WWII version hasn't been released yet. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjIrq20quP0AhUVCc0KHaKkCSoQFnoECBwQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMariana_Islands&usg=AOvVaw0JEJZo1b-ZuM3w5473bhIy

Thanks for the head up, but if you turn that on, what do you do if you are in a vehicle that doesn't have gun stabilization, or you don't have it activated? I don't like that special options feature for that reason. If I'm in a tank that doesn't have it, I want the platform to shake. Admittedly I don't know the history behind the platform shake feature, but if it was to make gun stabilization look like it was doing something, then it would be better IMO to just model the gun stab feature so that when you turn it on, the platform stops shaking. But I'm not sure, is there some other purpose the platform shake feature serves?

Do you mean the back burner?

@Northstar98, I am talking about the feature set of CA. Yes there is a very long list of things that need to be fixed/updated with ground vehicles/navy ships and the CA module itself, but considering the amount of development time devoted to improving CA as compared to the more pressing issue of plane/jet/helicopter modules, I for one appreciate the amount of work that has already gone into it. I don't share your sentiment that CA has been dead for ages, but I get why you would say that. I mean, you would say that about the F18 if it had the same amount of development time devoted to it as the Yak 52.

@Northstar98, I should start by saying how much I enjoy following your posts and the contribution they make to this community. You raise a very valid point in terms of areas where CA could be improved, and I couldn't agree more. But what you seem to have missed is that I'm not suggesting CA isn't in need of the fixes you mentioned, I am saying that the CA module is rock solid in terms of its concept/implementation and the potential it holds as one of the important cogs in the wheel of a digital combat simulator. The gaming industry is huge, and the number of people interested in seeing immersive game play that can actually bring the game world to life is probably the largest part of that industry... and it's growing. I see the vertical slice/tech demo you mentioned as having quite a lot in common with ED/DCS World, and very much inline with the point I am trying to make. It wasn't but a few months ago that project was comprised of just a single developer, but look at the following he has generated. Anyone not sure just how popular real armor simulation can be should just follow his discord, I know because I have been following it for quite awhile. IMO, the entire ball of wax over there is the result of one thing and one thing only, realism! And that realism is enhanced by the attention to detail the DEV has put into what he does. Reminds me of another developer I've been following with the initials ED in its name. Now to answer your point and the issues you raise, you are focusing on the ground vehicles we have in CA today, and what I would suggest you focus on is the aircraft we have if you want a fair assessment of the level of attention to detail going into this project. CA as a module has received very little attention so far comparatively speaking. I say that loosely because you don't have to use it for very long to realize that even with the temporary limited focus it has received, the attention to detail is still visible at all levels, and in all aspects.

Well I went back and now realize why I thought it was awkward, I wasn't using the Num5 key to center the gun when the situation called for it. Like I said before, the vast majority of the times I have problems with Combined Arms, it is usually something I am doing, or not. Not saying there aren't lots of things that need fixing, but the Combined Arms module is definitely worth the price of admission. It wouldn't take much for this flight SIM (digital combat simulator) to show the other tanks games the right way to do it. Things are super smooth in the gunners seat now. RtShift + L = Tracking mode, or "Enter" key = Target Lock mode V key = Gun Stabilization MMB = Turret Axis mode L key = Lase target Num5 key = Cancel Gun Stabilization and center gun to hull

So if I understand correctly, if you deselect "compute firing solution" in special options, it will affect the "Target Lock" mode, but not the "Auto Tracking" mode? Awesome video, very informative and thanks for sharing. BTW, this video doesn't show up when I search for it inside YouTube using the name as shown in the link you provided. Also, you mention in this video that you have others. I subscribed to your channel, but there are no videos listed there. Where can I find a link to the videos you put up on YouTube? A question to both you and @Wychmaster regarding "Gun Stabilization". When activated, it not only stabilizes the gun from vertical (up/down motion) during fire/hull movement, but it also locks the turret position in relation to the hull as the tank moves. Do you know if this is how gun stabilization actually works? My question is in relation to how gun stabilization is modeled. It appears that the aiming point is being used to model gun stabilization. If this is how it actually works, then it makes sense. But if gun stabilization is meant to only prevent/limit/stabilize the up/down motion of the gun, then it would make sense that something other than the aim point be used to model it. The more I use Combined Arms, the more interested I am in the module. It is in desperate need of attention, but the amount of work that has already gone into it is impressive to say the least.