Callsign112

Does this have any effect on the tracking mode in CA? My guess would be that it doesn't, but isn't that what it does, it computes a firing solution based on speed and distance?

I didn't know that there were others. I was under the impression this was the only one. But to answer your question, I don't know I guess for no particular reason really. I thought it sort of gives the map a magical feel to it. Like the Avatar movie image above. I mean its not like that part of the map will be able to be used for anything else. There is no runway, village, road... Its not like a part of the map that has a real historical value to it. Like on Normandy where entire coast line defense infrastructure is completely absent. This is just a tree in the middle of a field amongst 1000 of other trees. But I would definitely support you and the community if the desire was to remove it for the sake of what is actually there in real life.

Hope it stays.

Thanks guys for the very complete explanation. That makes perfect sense. I will get back in later on to try it out.

Okay so I was close... it's RtShift + L to turn it on. But to be honest, I missed a lot more in this mode, then in the Target Lock mode. With target lock, at least you can see how you have to adjust your aim to correct for distance and speed. With tracking mode, I guess you just have to trust that it is calculating the correct lead. Unless I am doing something wrong, it was even hard to tell if it improved anything from just plain old using the gun sight without assistance. It did seem a little more accurate when targeting vehicles that were going away from me though.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that I am glad it is there and is now doing what it should be doing, all be it with a slight overreach IMO. The intent of the video was meant to highlight the point you raised about it not being ON by default. After looking closer at it, I was wondering if the reason for that wasn't because the turret gets locked to a position when the "V" key is pressed. I think they need to fix that, because it makes using gun stabilization awkward. But you mentioned using LRF to get a target lead.... how do you that? I tried, but can't figure it out.

Well I really like the fact that stabilization is there, and it now does what it is supposed to do in terms of keeping the gun sight from jumping around with each shot/while moving. You can see a big difference in the video as I toggle stabilization On/Off during both fire and movement. Compare targeting in the Abrams in the video you did more than a year ago with today... I would say they answered to your feedback, which is always nice. But to me it seems to also act a bit like a targeting feature, and I think that might be at least one of the reasons why we don't see it ON by default. How do you get laser range finder to work. I tried, but can't seem to figure it out. Saw a YouTube where the guy mentioned using the targeting computer with LtShift + L, or something like that IIRC, but it never worked for me. I know the Target Lock feature ("Enter" key) also adjusts for speed and distance. If you haven't tried it yet, just place the tank you want to fire from at a right angle to the vehicle you want to target. Play around with the targeted vehicles distance from your gun, and the speed at which it crosses your path. Works very well, as long as you can keep your gun sight on the lock.

As discussed elsewhere, ground vehicles in DCS Combined Arms are continually being updated and improved. The linked video gives an overview of how missile systems for vehicles like the Bradely IFV and Stryker ATGM are modeled, as well as the gun stabilization and target lock features. Most ground vehicles will show slightly different behavior in their modeled features depending on whether the unit is being directly controlled by a player, or acting as an Ai unit. For example, when vehicles like the Bradely IFV, or the Stryker ATGM are being directly controlled by a player, all weapons systems are immediately available along with their targeting views from the default gunners station. When acting as an Ai unit, the missile systems will more appropriately turn on only after an enemy unit has been detected and the ROE for the unit are set appropriately. In order to make the modeled behavior for player controlled units more like their Ai counterparts, a keybinding to toggle both the missile system and its gun sight view On/Off would have to be added. This would give the player control over when each weapon system is active. And as seen in the linked video, gun stabilization now works much better than it did a year ago. But for vehicles like the Abrams tank for example, gun stabilization should be set to "ON" by default as previously suggested by @Apocalypse31. After looking at how gun stabilization is modeled in CA, I'm not sure how practical it would be to have it turned on by default, even though it should be. To activate, the player simply presses the "V" key which appears to fix the gun sight to the specific point (pixel) being aimed at. This causes the turret to move independently of the hull so that it remains fixed on that same point until the next reference point is selected. So having gun stabilization ON by default would cause problems for player control during game play. At the same time, the target lock feature can be activated by pressing the "Enter" key. If the target is stationary, and both the "V" and "Enter" keys are pressed, the gun sight and target lock icon will remain appropriately fixed on the target even during hull movement. But if the target is moving, the target lock icon, which is adjusted for range and speed, will follow appropriately, but the gun sight will remain fixed at the point it was aimed at when the "V" key was pressed. This causes an increased separation between the gun sight and the target to be followed as movement continues. The question I have is whether it would be better to model gun stabilization on something other than a point of reference? If gun stabilization was modeled on something like the angle the player was aiming at, so that the starting default would be 90 degrees from the vertical and centered with the hull, and the target lock feature included a point of reference in its model (center of its targeting icon), then gun stabilization could be turned on by default, and modeled behavior of both features would more closely resemble the tank IRL.

+1. Yeah either as part of the binocular view, or as part of the "/" command menu. It makes sense to me that something along the lines of what you are suggesting would be the intended direction of ED anyway as CA use is probably the one universal military doctrine the world over. Naming a module "Combined Arms" just doesn't cut it without the intention of making it an overarching part of the simulated game play iMO.

What's even more cool is the effort you put into your missions. Just watched your video on flak update... Awesome, and thanks from the entire community I am sure!

If I understand you correctly, I was thinking the exact same thing. Currently, the module is set up to provide JTAC for real pilots. And of course this makes sense, as you can provide the needed logic in the mission editor to have an AI aircraft attack a ground target. But as important as the JTAC role is, it would be nice if the CA player with fog of war turned on could get into position and call Ai aircraft on station for the attack once he finds the target. Naturally this would include all the routine radio communications between Ai pilot/JTAC for immersion. The SP community is a very important segment to ED I am sure, and this would be seen as a really nice addition.

@Mordant, awesome post! Updated vehicle model/mechanics, troop deployment, setting up FARP's on point,... all great suggestions and desperately needed. And I think you are absolutely right about the general community perception of CA. MP issues are a major obstacle, and I think people in general are either unsure of how to use all of the included CA features, or they find the module intimidating in much the same way the mission editor can be intimidating. But I have to say, most of what is already there is really, really well done IMO! You can tell a lot of energy and thought went into the planning and making stages of Combined Arms, and the more I use it, the more I want to. I can see how the CA module would be right at home in a real life military training environment where vehicle commanders (JTAC/Operator slots) work in unison with their chain of command (Tactical Commander slot) while being supervised/guided by an instructor (Game Master slot). Depending on what you mean by intuitive, the in-game/F10 user interface is very decent considering all the functionality it has to include. And considering what is being simulated, as a field commander in control of combined arms assets, there is understandably going to be a lot going on there. The F10 map view is really quite true to life and authentic all the way from the strategic icons it uses to identify assets, to the elevation/heading information it provides. The biggest improvement to the F10 map they could make in terms of user interface IMO would be to expand on its group forming functionality. It would be great to be able to click and drag your mouse over the desired units to form new groups on the fly. In other words, lets say you made a formation of 10 units in the mission editor, but during game play, you want two units to break off and get into a position for JTAC/scouting (fog of war is turned on), or you want to split them into two platoons with different approaches on an objective. Later on, you could drag and click both groups again, or just Shift + click the lead vehicles to reform the larger formation to make managing the movement of large numbers of units on the map easier. But I really encourage anyone feeling intimidated by the module to just give it try, because I am certain anyone that does will find its not as bad as they might think. If you can assign way points in the mission editor, you can make very good use of the Combined Arms module. And anyone capable of using triggers creatively can really make the module sing. This is where I am currently at on the learning curve, and here is an example of what you can do: So a shout out to @Mr_sukebe and countless others like him for supporting the community. I try to follow his unofficial roadmap, but somehow seem to miss a lot. Thanks for sharing. @Silver_Dragon, absolutely love the videos!

+1... really great suggestion!

+1... And what a beautifully written post. The Yak 52 truly is one of my favorites. It won't be replacing the Mustang, but I really do love it. Like you, I picked it up in a previous sale and couldn't be happier with the purchase. ED should not interpret that as a blind willingness to wait indefinitely for outstanding issues to be addressed, but they should know that their fans are with them. Two of the best YouTube videos on DCS IMO are the one where someone takes off and lands on the side of a mountain repeatedly, and the one where the guy takes off in a blizzard and then pushes the Yak and himself to the limits as he scales the spine of a mountain range to reach his landing. No need to mention either of the authors, you know who you are. I think it is the Yak's bare-bones simplistic nature that makes it so beautiful. The rest is up to you ED!

I see your point, but if your in SP mode there isn't really anyone to cheat. In MP, I think you can restrict external views. But I agree with you completely. They really should add the commanders view to the vehicles with the ability to open/close the hatch. I don't mind the monocular sight as much as I mind its use with WWII vehicles though.

+1. I enjoy using Isometric view a lot, because it helps add to the battlefield perspective. I think most vehicles already have a drivers view with Lt Cnt + C, but they should definitely add a commanders view from both inside the Cupola and out. One could argue that they have already implemented the commanders view through binoculars, but it is not the same as being able view the game world from the commanders position unhindered.

Aside from improved modeling for things like suspension, armor, armament/gun sight, there are a number of little things that could be done to improve ground vehicles. But it is also worth noting that what ED has implemented is First-In-Class even when compared to other products that are strictly focused on ground vehicles. I have yet to come across a better implementation of turret traverse with a mouse. And the implementation of driving mechanics in terms of gas, brake, stick shift... ect has all the right elements in place, and only needs a bit of clean up. For me another area that could use a review/update are grouped vehicles and how we move them. Currently, we cannot form groups on the fly while a mission is running. We can take control of the primary unit and assign way points to the vehicles in its group, but we cannot drag and select 2 units out of a larger group and have them advance as a scouting party for example. This would go a long way in improving the user interface/control in CA.

Full fidelity vehicles would be awesome, but even if they just updated/added to what is already there, it would be a huge advance.

If we take a step back, clearly we can see that the team at ED has proven itself to be capable of pulling off some pretty tricky stuff in the computer coding department. I mean, they are not only software engineering the worlds most sophisticated pieces of military avionics hardware into machine code, but they built the entire ecosystem needed for these technological wonders to operate in, including an intuitive user interface that allows virtually anyone interested to input instructions and then watch as they fly around to preform them. So I am pretty sure ED can make it so that trucks drive on roads in a MP environment. What ever the issue is, I am sure it is more a matter of the amount of time spent dealing with it then anything else. I see Combined Arms as being very far from totally screwed, and in stead of needing to be completely overhauled, I think the MP feature just needs to be worked on more. In fact, speaking just about its use in SP mode, the Combined Arms module lives up to its product description very well. It does all of the things it claims it can be used for and more. After learning some of the history surrounding the module, I get why CA is at its core a combat training simulator, although it is not really being marketed as such. IMO, Combined Arms sits in the same category as products like Steel Beasts, except instead of focusing on a single vehicle, its focus is on the entire battle field and what happens there. You can use it as an incredibly powerful tool to help build/create very immersive game play scenarios, or you can use it as an incredibly powerful teaching tool. Groups running their own server could use it to train / practice new squadron recruits / experienced pilots to scramble into action at the sound of a siren for example. But threads like this are proof positive that ED needs to devote more development time to the CA module. Clearly the benefit would be an improved MP experience.

I think the OP's suggestion is an excellent one. Its true that the vast majority of people that come to DCS are here for the learning SIM experience. But the point was how to add to that community. Clearly the fact that there is a FC3 shows that ED is aware of the concept being discussed here, and without ever having used the FC3, or knowing much about its history here, I would say that the FC3 product was an essential part of the plan to develop full fidelity models from a funding perspective. The point being missed here IMO is that having FC3 level models of all the WWII planes would help more than it would hinder. In terms of the FM, obviously both FC3 and the HI-Fi versions would use the same FM. Why reinvent the wheel twice? The FC3 versions would obviously be watered down in terms of cockpit functionality and skin texture, but again, there is very little work involved there in comparison to the upside for increased revenue streams. And I think that is the most important point, having a FC3 (MAC) version of the WWII plane set would help ease the cost of developing full fidelity models. In fact, the early access version could be a FC3 type model that we would all be able to use while they finish up the Hi-Fi version. Seems to me to be a win-win. ED could address all the constant complaining about early access and the "what's taking so long" crowd all in one shot. Two pilots with one stone sort of concept.

@DTS_Maton, thanks for that. All of my DCS game play at the moment is SP stable version. Yeah, my understanding is that MP is more problematic. Hopefully we will see more improvements there soon. It makes me wonder though if it is a CA problem, or something else. I have created missions that have 100+ units (planes/vehicles) using Ai path finding logic. Even though all of the vehicles have their own path finding, they can all be driven by real players. The only thing I haven't tried in DCS is to host one of those missions to see what happens when another real player joins me. I will have to find the time to get to that next. Good luck.

As a DCS Combined Arms user, I know that Ai logic and path finding can be a real challenge at times, but I have also noticed that a lot of the problems I encounter are the result of me simply not knowing how to do something, or what to expect. Taking into consideration things like distance between way points and their direction have helped a lot in terms of getting Ai units to do/go what/where I want. Its also nice to know that we can make large formation battles consisting of numerous groups of vehicles, and the Ai logic assigned to each group stays intact even as the battle progresses and units get destroyed. I'm linking a couple of videos showing some of the things I've learned while exploring the CA feature set, and how I am able to improve my experience using it.

I have spent what must be hundreds of hours by now working with ground units and Ai logic, and the primary reason I have done so was to see if I couldn't help with some of the frustrations the community is facing. So thanks for posting. I have to say though, I can't reproduce what you are seeing. Would you be willing to share the mission file, and is this in SP mode? I was able to get a Leo tank to follow the way point paths you are showing across both bridges without any issues in SP mode. I have presonally noticed major improvements in Ai path finding since I started using Combined Arms, and can now use single way point navigation across entire maps using multiple vehicles On-Road without any issues. Off-road, and complex terrain require more attention, but except for bodies of water/rivers, even dense forest can be navigated by large groups of vehicles with little issue most of the time. I give two examples in the linked video, but I drive right across Normandy, the Channel, Nevada, the Caucasus, and the Marianas with no issues from a single column of On-road vehicles perspective.

Thanks! Full support of M3 LLC. Can't wait for the Corsair

Just an example of how anyone can use the Tactical Commander slot with fog-of-war turned on to create some very interesting game play even in SP mode.