Callsign112

@Silver_Dragon, some of the confusion seems to be with our use of Ai logic and Combined Arms in the same discussion. While they are two different things, it is just natural that we see Ai logic in action while using CA, unless the units are all occupied by real players. But I never suggested the videos above show CA Ai working. What I said was: "But the thing is, I could have taken control of any one of the ground/air units in the battle using Combined Arms, or I could have configured CA to allow other players to join me and take control of the various units as well." The mission examples in the videos were created specifically for CA use. Meaning, as a GAME MASTER I could take control of all units on both sides to affect the battle outcome. I could also control just one side vs Ai, or include other real players. But as I already mentioned, the action shown in the video is all Ai controlled and it's worth mentioning that you can run the mission ten times and get 10 variations to the outcome. I think that demonstrates that the Ai does in fact react depending on the situation. Meaning a vehicle that might be taken out early in one battle, might survive to the end the next time you run the mission to completely change its outcome. But my understanding of a dynamic campaign is obviously quite different from yours. When I think of a dynamic campaign, I don't really think of Ai control, but more how the outcome of one battle will affect the next battle to follow.

Thanks,... or should I say TANKS!

I think there might be a lost-in-translation thing going on here SD! While I am advocating for continued support of Combined Arms, which is what this thread is about, I am also responding to someones comments regarding the CA video demos I linked above. Those being the members issues related to an Ai units ability to react to fire, and its path-finding logic. I realize path-finding is not a CA issue in and of itself, but because of the large number of problems path-finding can represent when trying to get ground units to move across a map, the issue is often talked about in discussions related to Combined Arms. And there is nothing wrong with that considering the issues are largely encountered while using Combined Arms to move ground units around. I have a lot less issue with setting way points for Ai aircraft than I do for Ai ground units. I think you are overstating the importance of the Dynamic campaign feature in terms of fixing issues with Ai logic. The dynamic campaign will add to the way our missions/campaigns progress, but I don't expect that it will affect any of the current issues related to Ai logic. Path-finding for example will not be fixed because I can play my mission out in a dynamic campaign style. While a dynamic campaign will definitely add to the ground war, I don't see it bringing the other types of improvements I want to see with the ground war side of DCS.

I think everyone here would agree that the Ai needs to see improvements. But I don't think it is fair to say the Ai have hardly/no reaction to being shot at. As demonstrated in the two videos above, the Ai units on both sides are doing the shooting. In the WWII video the red stationary units defeated the advancing blue units, but in the modern video it was the advancing blue units that defeated the stationary red units to take the point. This was without any interaction on my part. Regarding way points, it is also true that path-finding is another area in need of improvements, which I believe is being worked on. But I think it is also worth pointing out that it also depends on how the end-user places the way points. You can eliminate a lot of problems by taking the time to plan unit movement, especially through areas with lots of obstacles. When I am setting up a mission, I quite often make several test runs to iron out issues like path-finding. A few things I found helped Ai movement were: 1. Experiment with the number of units in a group to find what works best. 2. Test different combinations of way point types, and unit speeds between each way point to see what works best. 3. Use as few way points as possible to achieve the desired movement. You can have a much larger group of vehicles if all you are doing is having them move along a road, but you should reduce the group size when you want them to move through areas with lots of obstacles. You may find giving each of 10 units their own way points works better than giving a group of 10 vehicles a path to follow. Similarly, if you want a large group of vehicles to travel along a road before turning off into an open field following the lead unit, use on-road followed by off-road where you want them to enter the field. You can also make this movement look much more realistic though by breaking the large group into 2 or 3 smaller groups and using custom way points to have them enter the field. Using 2, or 3 smaller groups gives you more control over the speed of each group (time it arrives at each way point), the distance between each group, as well as the way point type each group follows at any given point. A column of 10 vehicles might look the most realistic as it moves through an objective when it is broken into a group of 4, a group of 3, a group of 2, and one single unit group. When traveling along roads, add way points only at points where you want the group(s) to change direction. I start by placing my first way point at the groups destination, and then I add way points to force the on-road path along the desired route. When traveling across country, I start with the destination way point and then do test runs to observe the group(s) movement. I might find the group navigates okay through a group of buildings, but then gets hung up on a hedge. I then go back and add the necessary way points to coax the group around the hedge. This takes time, but that's mission building for you. Could the end-user experience be improved by improving the Ai logic in DCS World? Definitely. Could the overall experience of the digital combat simulator be improved by improving the ground war side of DCS World? Without a doubt. Work on Combined Arms please!

Couldn't agree more, a combat simulator should include more than just air elements. But drac is right, you can already do this quite easily if you have Combined Arms. I made a couple videos to show off both modern, and WWII ground units in DCS CA. In case your interested and haven't seen them yet, I linked them below. There was no fancy mission editor stuff needed to make either video. Everything you see is just the Ai reacting. All I did was have a bunch of blue units drive toward a bunch of red units holding a point using simple way points. But the thing is, I could have taken control of any one of the ground/air units in the battle using Combined Arms, or I could have configured CA to allow other players to join me and take control of the various units as well. The intention of the videos was to show how advanced the ground environment already is using CA. I have also made other videos that show off the user interface of player controlled vehicles, and it wouldn't take too much to push the combined arms experience in DCS well beyond something like WT.

Thanks for all the info you bring to the forum SD. One thing I would really like to see added to the JTAC feature is the ability to guide Ai aircraft onto target. This would really add to mission building options IMO, and would also help better support player use of CA in ground combat roles. It would also be nice to see CA become more WWII friendly with the addition of a forward observer type role. Views through actual WWII binoculars would also be a plus. But even if the team has been reassigned/disbanded, someone is still clearly working on CA as it has seen numerous updates over the last 10 years. Really appreciate all the input from ED's team on the forums. I think it is one of the things that separates DCS World from most other platforms. The community here might not always like the response it gets, but there is usually a response on most issues. So thanks. I would just like to add that vehicle control in DCS CA is on par with most dedicated platforms, and even better than some. Even with all its current issues, I think CA gets the short end of the stick more than it should and hope ED can find a way to continue its regular updates.

No one is breaking any rules SD. You have suggested here and elsewhere that something can't be done, I simply pointed out that it can be. SD said... "Combined Arms was a old JTAC military trainer to the UK army, aproved to release on DCS, no a driveable tank module. That never was your target." Where your comments in the quote above are wrong IMO are in regards to the features offered in CA. Combined Arms might be an old JTAC trainer approved for release on DCS, but it also allows the end user to drive and control tanks. As far as I understand, CA was marketed with this feature from its release. As a customer that purchased the CA module, I fully expected to be able to drive tanks when I purchased it. In terms of working on CA, which is what this thread is about, it really doesn't matter to me if an improvement is done to the DCS core, or the CA module itself. For example, we can now start and stop the engine of ground vehicles. I really don't care at what level this improvement had to be implemented on, what matters is that I saw an improvement in my control of ground vehicles in CA. Regarding DM's, the issue isn't about the time period the current models come from, it is about improving them. I'm not expecting DM for ground vehicles to make the leap from where they are now to the same scale and level as the current DM for WWII planes. But any and all improvements are always appreciated. Work on CA please!

It doesn't really matter if a feature is part of a module, or part of DCS World core. The point at this point in the discussion is more about what is possible in terms of adding to DCS World. In another flight sim, I saw the Dev's there modify the terrain model so that it affected how a player controlled vehicle moved, and this was done to all 4 maps that were originally made for flight and never intended to have ground vehicles. That feature was obviously implemented through the core, but it was only noticed/considered by the people using ground vehicles. The damage models used for the various objects in DCS World are quite complex because of the amount of detail that has been put into them. I don't think the problem is whether or not a DM can be added to/updated in DCS World. I think the problem is more likely related to finding the time and resources to do it.

The DM is probably the most hardcore point listed above, and that is supposedly already planned. Cleaning up the transmission/gear box could simply be making sure the number of gears modeled are accurate for each vehicle, and that gear shifts occur at appropriate engine RPM. The same could be said for periscopes/sights, the view stations for the most part already exist, there is noting hardcore about ensuring that they resemble the actual view from each vehicle.

Great video, thanks. Couldn't agree more, they could really add more realism to prop (WWII) start-up with a little smoke/sputter.

While I agree the lines between what is and what isn't a CA issue are easily blurred, the Combined Arms interface is what allows you to control/drive the ground units. So in this regard, I think feedback regarding improvements to ground units should be a CA issue.

Thanks for starting the discussion on vehicle module development. But again, a lot of what you listed is already there, it just needs to be updated/fixed/improved. And some of the things that aren't there could be added in time, but wouldn't be deal breakers for vehicle control in CA. I copy/pasted what are IMO the most important features of a player controlled vehicle, and which already exist to some degree on the current vehicles in CA. Regarding vehicle interiors, I don't think there is any need to model the interior of a tank the same way the cockpit of an aircraft is modeled. The most important thing in this area IMO is simply the different views that are available. Make the gun sights/view stations more true to life, and your golden. And as I have already mentioned, a lot of the view stations are already modeled and could simply use refinement. transmissions/gear box suspensions/tracks periscopes/sights Gun/Armor DMs.

If you can provide a track, it might speed up/help with a response.

Actually SD, advertising is what the whole ball of wax is made of. And as you can see from the attached screen shots, ED has done a pretty decent job so far with its ground environment. That is not to say that it doesn't need updates, but DCS certainly doesn't have everyone at 20k feet either. Personally I think you are making it more complicated then it really is in terms of what is possible. I know ED has a lot on its plate and resources are probably spread pretty thin, but you wouldn't have to look too hard to find a good example of what can be done in terms of detailed vehicles being added to a flight sim. But I get your point, the work that still needs to be done would require someone to do it.

I think this is where some of the confusion starts. People often use the word "simulator" when they discuss ground vehicles in CA, but what they are mostly talking about is improvements to ground vehicles. Your right SD, Combined Arms was probably never meant to be a dedicated M1A1 tank simulator. But it shouldn't have to be in order to see improvements in tanks/ships. I personally think CA is an excellent addition to DCS, and it deserves more attention then it gets. I know this may be difficult for ED given the amount of resources it has, but there are other examples of a flight sim that added detailed vehicles. It shouldn't require a complete rewrite just to improve ground/track physics models, or any other aspect of ground vehicles. But in terms of ED's target for DCS, this quote is taken from the DCS World web page: "Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

Do you have any issues with the mod after each patch update?

You would think it would be possible for a player that has both maps on his/her drive to fly between them in a seamless way, if only DCS World could manage and connect the point in space and time you leave one map with your entry point on the other map. This would also have to include weather/clouds of course. But yeah, 3 to 4 years sounds about right.

Yeah can we have this please?

Personally I think if we want the ability to jump in and take control, they should make that a separate feature from the track recording feature. When I want to record a session, the important point is to be able to record the inputs and outputs of what actually happened when it happened, not what happened after I took control while watching it.

++1 for the thread and all the features wish listed, but my wish would be if they could just have it so that it works.

I think you have explained the problem quite well. You are comparing two things that don't actually compare well with each other. You noticed that another product is put together more as a bundled offer. I think that's great, and I know it serves its customer base well if that is what your looking for. The takeaway here should be if you want a bundled system like that, then you have to take it as it is. In other words, you have to take all its good points with all its bad points and just enjoy the purchase you made. You can't hand pick what you like from different business models to come up with your own version of what company A, or B should be doing. Company A does things the way it does for a reason just as Company B does. I am contributing to a thread on the DCS forum because I am 100% behind ED and its DCS World product line. But I also own the other product you mentioned, and I will tell anyone interested that they are both great products. They are very different from each other, but both are great just the same. So IMO, what both companies should do is what ever is needed to keep their respective doors open for business. Regarding the Kuznetsov, I got that along with the Su-33 for free when I purchased the Super Carrier module, so I was pretty happy with that. I realize some people purchased the Su-33 as part of the FC3 product before the release of the Super Carrier, but I don't think it's fair to hold the fact that they weren't able to make the SC sooner against them. Video game development is an iterative process, and things like that are unavoidable. I appreciate that you are a member of this community and that you have contributed to the development of DCS World. I also hope you continue enjoying using the DCS platform.

I couldn't like and say thanks at the same time, so thanks!

Thanks, I just wanted the location so I could fly into it with a plane that has a damage model to see if anything happens. Whats even funnier is there doesn't seem to be any other street lights close by, just that one.

Can you give the exact location?

Great shots! Love touring the Syria map on the ground, or in either a CE II or Yak-52. I will have to get me a helicopter to add to the experience.