Callsign112

I completely disagree with your take on what can and can't mix well. Speed of individual units has absolutely nothing to do with it, and please let me explain why. The ability to build a mission in DCS World that mixes jets/helicopters/infantry/navy in a fun and interesting way is a function of the mission designers imagination and nothing else. A ground unit might request a strike package from a carrier based jet that is cruising 60 miles offshore. Nothing is saying that the mission has to be jets against foot soldiers. And nothing is saying that the foot soldier wont have his own buddies in jets, or that he wont have surface-to-air capabilities. In real life, boots and wings actually mix very well, and have done so since aviation was a thing. As a mission designer, if you intend to have jets supporting tanks, I would hope that you wouldn't have them leaving from the same air base, or at least not at the same time. Wouldn't a better approach be to have the tanks engaged at a forward position where the jet pilot would have to fly to before giving support? I have no doubt writing a mission where someone sits and stares at the ground for hours would be seen as boring for 99.9% of the people brave enough to run it, but that's the point, the mission is to build excitement into what happens. If someone sees spending literally hours waiting to be rescued before being able to respawn back in a plane as fun, then all I can say is each to his own. But I don't think that concept of fun defines whether jets and boots mix. If the intention is to have a mission where a downed pilot waits for search and rescue, then that is what anyone running the mission should expect. I would think that scenario would work better though by having the real player doing the search and rescue, and the downed pilot waiting as simply Ai. In other words, you get shot down and have to eject. You then immediately spawn into a search and rescue role where you fly out to pick your Ai-self up. I wanted to quote the two posts that I did to show how our frame of mind affects our opinions. Your opinion that jets can't exist in the same world as foot soldiers is troubling to me, because believe it or not, that is what's currently on the news channel I'm watching. Regarding DCS World and the use of ground units, after watching hours of YouTube video on Steal beasts/Arma3, I don't get the notion that DCS is so bad. In terms of map size? In terms of graphics? In terms of the number and type of available ground units? The only thing Arma3 has at the moment is a much better infantry model IMO. And I am not talking about the FPS feature. If DCS had a larger number of available Ai infantry types (WWII quality level), with Ai logic that could realistically attack/defend real players in aircraft/ground units, there would be very little for Arma3 to offer other than its specialty as a FPS. Steal Beasts is a real world simulation of the Abrams, but DCS is so much more. And the bit about JTAC, again it all depends on how you see things @cfrag. I personally think that the JTAC feature in Combined Arms is one of its best features. I can't knock you for thinking that its not, because in part, I think ED might be responsible for some of the blame here. I am sure most here would agree that having the ability to have real players marking targets for other real players in aircraft as a flight centered SIM is a pretty cool feature. Especially considering that JTAC is a very demanding role in real life. If nothing else, it brings a level of complexity to war game simulation never before seen. The point I am driving at is that the JTAC role is so significant, it might be the reason ED names one of the three roles available in CA after it. I think the roles would have been more appropriately named: Game Master, Tactical Commander, and Vehicle Commander. Your description of the JTAC role is the point I am trying to get to, because I think you are not alone in that feeling. My impression is that a lot of people understand the JTAC role in CA as simply marking targets. As a recap, the different levels of control for the 4 different slots are Game Master: Able to see and control all units on both sides even when fog-of-war is turned on. Able to use JTAC feature. Tactical Commander: Able to see and control all units from his/her own coalition. Able to see all enemy units when fog-of-war is turned off. Able to use JTAC feature. JTAC: Able to see all units from his/her own coalition. Able to see all enemy units when fog-of-war is turned off. Able to control only the vehicle he/she is driving. Able to control Ai units in a group when controlling the primary vehicle of a group. Observer: able to see the battle field from all camera positions. In other words, when you are in a JTAC slot, you are not limited to only marking targets. Depending on the vehicle you are in, you can also be very much in the fight. Lets say you are in the primary vehicle of an Abrams platoon, and you are being confronted by an overwhelming force. You can use the JTAC feature to guide an incoming airstrike to clear the way. I know this doesn't come across well, but it might have more to do with how ED describes the CA product than anything else.

Hey thanks for your response. Yeah I realize you would be making the mission, and on the surface how that might sound like it would kill all the enjoyment because you already know whats in front of you, but you might be surprised at how different it is to actually drive the mission, even when your the one that created it. You can use changes in distance to enemy formations, their direction of movement (zig zag) and the number of way points given. You can also use variations in the speed set for each enemy unit waypoint, as well as use multiple formations starting from and going to different destinations. It also helps to use map locations with hills and land formations that can obstruct visibility. I like the Caucasus map for this, but you can easily use other map features like vegetation on the Normandy map. Make the mission without closely studying map detail, and like I said, you might be surprised at how everything looks once your in the tank. The video I posted in the linked thread was done in this way. I knew that there were groups of enemy units, but I didn't know exactly where they would be as I drove through the map. I knew the general direction/approximate location to look, but not exact. The only formation I knew the location of was the last formation that was traveling on a road. I just didn't know how far along their route they would be when I got there. But the first two groups of enemies were almost like a chance encounter in that I had to find them first. Regarding the infantry issue, that is sort of why I made the request. Having more of a focus on vehicles, I thought it would be interesting to see a DCS version of a light armor recon. I am always interested in learning more about deployment strength. Like what would you deploy for a given mission?

I couldn't agree more, with helicopters increasingly becoming more popular, the demand for better ground vehicles/infantry and maps to drive them on is only going to follow. But if you own Combined Arms, have you used it very much on the Caucasus map? The Caucasus already includes large elevation changes with contours in map detail defined well enough to hide large armored columns in. The more I use the FREE Caucasus map, the more I like it. I don't have Syria, or the Persian Gulf yet, but my two favorite maps at the moment are the Caucasus and Nevada, even for WWII scenarios. I am using the Caucasus to simulate West Germany post D-Day, and Nevada for N. Africa. I think the new engine and coming core improvements are meant to make VR more workable in DCS World, but they should also certainly be able to increase the allowable overhead needed to make better more detailed maps. But what I think we need more in terms of DCS World map tech is the ability to interact more with the maps we already have. Things like Collision/Damage models of map objects (destructible buildings), graphic/sound effects of map objects (bomb blasts), with an Ai infantry capable of realistically using the map objects to attack/defend your position. Map technology will be a crucial part of bringing DCS World to the next level.

Yeah I don't know because I am relatively new here, but I would say based on what has gone into the Combined Arms module, there has to be more in the works than just targets for planes. At least that's the story I'm sticking to, if not the one I'm hoping for.

I had another look at the new SPG in mission, and I think it could use a tweak for the sake of making game play more realistic. IRL, 2 unprotected people could both be standing 45 meters away from the blast, but only one gets knocked out(50%). Currently in game, it is 100%. But if the person is shielded, max distance causing injury is greatly reduced. In the attached video, I place armored vehicles between the infantry and the blast zone to see if it would affect the outcome, but it was the same. The problem is that it makes building realistic scenarios difficult. The last clip in the video gives an example. I realize this issue may be attached to making the SIM playable from a resource point of view, but even if that is the case, would it be possible to reduce the 100% lethal radius to help mission building and game play? Track attached. SPG Shells.trk

Thanks for showing some of the history behind Combined Arms. Lately, I have been spending a lot of time in Combined Arms. Haven't flown in almost 2 weeks.

The entire video is really worth watching, but you can start at 13:32 in the timeline for comments on buzz bombs and how they were also being shot down using flak.

Very happy to have received the last update. While the recent additions to the WWII Assets pack keep adding to its value, they also really help add to the combined arms capabilities of DCS WWII. All four additions are very nicely detailed, including beautifully modeled effects. The Wespe doesn't only go BOOM, its also a lot of fun to use. What's missing to complete the new units are crews, above ground fortifications, and destructible ammo crates/supplies. It would be nice to be able to place ready-made fortifications (sandbags) that fit each of the field/AT guns, as well as ammunition supplies in the mission editor to complete each emplacement. For the Wespe, and WWII tanks in general, the bino view you get with the "B" key should be replaced with an appropriate binocular view for WWII. For vehicles like the Wespe/Elephant, it would also be great if we had something that could assist more for ranging targets like scissors binoculars. At the moment, the commander is able to range find using a laser even though it is not accurate. It would also be nice if Combined Arms could be made a little more WWII friendly. Like for example, the JTAC feature is very cool and one of the modules best features, but it would be nice to see the feature also make it into WWII. Instead of a JTAC marking targets with a laser, Commanders in vehicles like the Wespe relied on forward observers using radio/phone lines. Could this functionality be added to the command menu for WWII? Excellent update ED, thanks!

I will have to go back and edit my YouTube post to read a 45 m radius. So the effect does seem to be modeled reasonably well for SIM purposes, although 100% lethal at 45 m may be too much, I think the 100% near lethal and 100% severe damage at 70 and 100 m is high though.

I am wondering if the modeled effects for the 10.5 cm HE shells are accurate? The linked video below shows the effect radius to be 100% lethal at about 45 m (150 ft). The only reference I was able to find cites 10.5 cm shells to be only 10% lethal for unprotected infantry at 90 m (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwja07KgipP0AhVMK80KHevbA0MQFnoECAMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.quora.com%2FWhat-is-the-blast-radius-of-a-105mm-shell&usg=AOvVaw3upNPLsos6sYzWMUoyuHHz). Does anyone else have a better reference?

bumping this because I'm seeing the same thing, has anyone looked into this?

One of the great things about DCS is the great community that supports it. I watch all of SUNTSAG's stuff, he has some of the most helpful stuff on YouTube. And I really do admire watching others use all the great community mods that are out there. I would definitely pay for the WWII ships that the community has put up for example, but I have had so much trouble trying to run mods that I just gave up. So yeah it would be nice to see this stuff making it into the game.

We need manned MG nest for both modern and WWII era.

Really enjoyed your light armored recon video in Arma3, any chance we could see you put together a DCS version?

I was finally able to get a row of infantry and a row of moving vehicles to pass a row of parked vehicles. Before 2.7., I was able to do this with a lot less fuss. The only way I could get it to work now was by placing the parked vehicles closer together, and the last truck nearly off the road to coax the infantry to stay on the road and not go the wrong way around. TBH, the row of moving vehicles don't always follow their path though, but sometimes wonder off into the field.

Absolutely need this. Great suggestions!

Great mission suggestion by the OP, but I wish that ED would make assets like the V1 rockets usable as part of the SIM.

I was going to make another post in the CA appreciation thread as a general "why its so great", but wanted to also get back to @Zimmerdylan's questions about CA with another video to look at why I like the interface, and why I think its very well laid out in terms of vehicle control. I will start by saying there are a lot of different vehicles/types available, as well as quite a few controls within CA itself, and making yourself familiar with all of them will help a lot in getting more use out of the module. You obviously wont need to use them all routinely, but knowing what is available for each specific vehicle is an important first step. I can always hit the pause/break key, and then ESC to access the "ADJUST CONTROLS" menu if I run into trouble during a mission. For anyone new that hasn't already done so, or isn't aware, it really pays to have a look at all the settings available under special options in the main menu, and or mission/map options within the mission editor itself. DCS World core allows for a lot of customization and setup of the simulator and how it runs your missions. But aside from the basic controls to enter and drive/turn a vehicle, the list of controls I use routinely from memory are: "Middle Mouse Button" - for better turret traverse control. (***used a lot) "T" key - to toggle Cruise Control on/off. "C" key - to toggle Autopilot on/off. "G" key - to add group way point "Space bar" - to confirm added group way point. "\" key - to access command menu. "Q" key - cycle through weapon/turret selection. "E" key - to cycle through ammo type. "V" key - for gun stabilization. "Enter" key - for target lock. "Left Mouse Button" - to fire main gun. "Lt Shft + LMB" - to fire secondary weapon. "Insert" key - for Isometric view. "F7" key - for External view. "F1" key - for Gunner view. "B" key - for Binocular view. "Scroll Wheel" - for Binocular zoom. You can add the "Home/End" keys to adjust the gun sight on WWII tanks, but that is it really. Memorizing just these 19 controls or so will allow you to direct a vehicle/group of vehicles with ease. The impression I got from comments on the forum is that some people are not use to switching between the F10 map and direct vehicle control, and I wondered if this might be why some view the CA interface as clumsy/awkward. The F10 map is very powerful in terms of what it allows a tactical commander to do and the information it provides, but I think it does take practice to be able to use both interfaces together without breaking the flow of game play. A fun way to get more comfortable with using the F10 interface and the information it provides is to first practice doing SP missions using just the F10 map with Fog of War turned on. Its sort of like playing a computerized version of the board game RISK where instead of rolling dice, units on the map move in real time and are hidden until you make contact. You can slowing build more challenge into the SP missions as you get more comfortable using the interface, but before you know it, switching between F10 and Direct Control is a lot less disruptive. I most often use F10 when I am controlling a platoon in one location, but need other units to move without wanting to directly control them, or I if need to reorganize forces. And as I already mentioned, it is also extremely useful in game play when the "Fog of War" feature is turned on. I have had issues with the F10 interface though. For example, you have to first set a way point before you can adjust the vehicle/group speed in F10. You can also increase and decrease the speed as much as you like en route to the way point, but I have seen the interface bug-out quite a few times when I moved the speed slider to the max. I don't know if anyone else has seen this, but the devs might want to consider setting it up so that the slider can only be moved as high as the slowest vehicle in the group would allow. But back to direct control, the MMB control in DCS is absolutely the best turret traverse control I have ever used on any platform. Anyone that has played other AFV sims/games will immediately get this. To activate it, simply click the MMB and then move your mouse right or left to adjust the speed and direction. To deactivate it, click the MMB again and the turret stops traversing. If while driving you find your turret fixed to a position as your hull turns, hit the NUM5 key and you should be all good. Regarding the control of movement itself, I haven't actually seen another platform with as many options. In DCS CA, you can drive your vehicle using the arrow keys just like in WarThunder if that is what you find most comfortable. But you can also make use of cruise control, autopilot, the assign group way point feature, and the command menu. I have certainly found a good use for all of these features depending on what I am doing. And of course, you can also control movement and formations from the F10 map. But in terms of finesse and the level of control the player has over not just the vehicle he is driving, but the other vehicles in his platoon, nothing compares to DCS CA. The other thing I really like about movement control in DCS CA is the way they have the transmission setup. On most other platforms, you use the up arrow to go forward, the the down arrow to go backwards. In DCS CA it is modeled to more closely resemble a real vehicle. You use the up arrow like you would use a gas pedal whether you are going forward, or backward. The X and Z keys are used to shift gears/ set in drive, neutral, reverse. To more closely simulate a standard transmission, uncheck the automatic transmission setting in CA SPECIAL OPTIONS within the main menu. What DCS CA is mostly missing are the frequent updates needed to continue fleshing out its development, but in terms of function and control it is already sitting on a very solid foundation. One of the most important issues that needs to be addressed is path finding and AI behavior. I have seen a lot of weird things crop up since 2.7 stable released in SP, and from what I can gather, things are a lot worse in MP. But path finding in something like CA is crucial, and it needs to be robust enough to work regardless of where, what, and when it happens. In the first video I linked below, I try to demonstrate some of the options discussed above for movement control in CA, and the second video is meant to show that you can use CA without knowing how to use script files, or most other technical features of DCS World for that matter. The mission took about 30 minutes to put together, and other than the few way points given to enemy Ai, no other mission logic was used. I use the direct control interface without the F10 map for the duration of the mission except near the very end where I jump around in different vehicles.

Very!

Same map, just updated i think.

Unfortunately i don't have the Syria map yet, but I am really interested to know what you did to get that result. Can you tell me which unit is using those way points? I am guessing that you have Combined Arms and that your screen shot is taken while the mission is running. Is this what you see when you press the "show all routes" button at the top of the screen? It looks like you have multiple way points set, what type are they?

Wanted to get back to this with another video. It is not always easy to get the AI to do what you want, and I find this with infantry more so than vehicles. Sometimes it is even hard to tell if the behavior I'm seeing is a bug, or if its just because I'm not doing something right. But getting AI infantry to look real in a battle scenario is a little bit like an art that requires a lot of practice. For example to address the bold text above, what I found works quite well is using the custom way point command at the right times. First make the size of group you want to use, then click on the primary unit and set way point 0 to custom, now move the individual units around by clicking and dragging so that they are in the formation you want them to move in, then add the additional custom way points you need to get them to the desired destination. Less way points is generally better in terms of RAM usage. This becomes more important as the size of your mission grows. I normally have to set up, run, change, repeat at least 2 or 3 times before I get the movement I want. Once the mission is running, you can use CA to change a groups formation on the fly if you like. And you can also add a lot of effect by changing the way point formation type and direction, or by having a number of groups moving together. For example, you might have a group of 10 soldiers using the On-Road way point command from WP0 to WP1 with a speed of 2. From WP1, try placing your next WP2 the desired distance from WP1, but at a 90 degree angle so that the units will have to make a sharp left or right turn. Also, make WP2 a custom WP with a speed of 6. What should happen here is the 10 soldiers should walk on the road in single file until they reach WP1. Since WP2 is a custom WP, all of the soldiers will start to turn and run from their current position instead of following the leader. The custom WP and simultaneous change in direction will give a scattered and very natural looking formation as the soldiers start to run. So lets say you want this group of 10 soldiers to attack another group of 5 soldiers. What I found looks the most natural is to try and set it up so that they don't start shooting at each other until after the group on the road starts turning and running. This should deliver pretty close to the movement you want to achieve. The first video linked below is just to demonstrate how simply changing the distance between units affects the movement outcome. The second video is showing a small squad of infantry following their support tank in a looping pattern around a town. Pay attention to the WP type in each video and notice how AI behavior changes as the WP type changes. In my last post, I just realized that I missed a movement command option when the player is in direct control of a group. I will follow this with another video in a later post.

+1 on adding crews to open vehicles/units.

Can't speak for ED on that one, but I don't see why they couldn't offer a "build your own" bundle. That way, if you already have the Normandy map but don't have the WWII Assets yet, you could add it to one of the birds for example. But I can definitely see a reason to at least include a CA/WWII Assets bundle.