DCS: Armour

[Silver_Dragon]

Wags RFI for M1A2 SEP

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=121008

 

From March DCS: W Newsletter

5 - In additional to our traditional focus on aircraft, we are also gradually expanding and improving the ground combat component of DCS World. Not only does this include continued improvements and additions to Combined Arms, but also work towards our first DCS level armor vehicle simulation.

 

First talks over them in the russian forum (google translator)

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2031185&postcount=3490

Originally Posted by Hitryi View Post

This will tank with clickable cockpit and the maximum simulated operation of all systems? Or a little easier?

 

While only a concept worked out, including the depth and modeling clickable cockpit.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2031215&postcount=3497

Originally Posted by Keshman View Post

Decide what kind of tank or BMP?

 

Let's not run ahead of the locomotive. It is still early to say.

[cichlidfan]

Let's not run ahead of the locomotive.

[kontiuka]

Let's not run ahead of the locomotive.

DCS: Locomotive?

[NineLine]

Let's not run ahead of the locomotive.

 

Always good advice :)

 

I came to DCS for the aircraft... but I am pretty pumped to see what they can do with a Tank sim...

[Pyroflash]

Always good advice :)

 

I came to DCS for the aircraft... but I am pretty pumped to see what they can do with a Tank sim...

 

You mean to tell me that the A-10C isn't a tank sim? :D

 

In all seriousness though, a proper tank acting in a simulated combined arms setting is something that I've wanted for a very long time. ArmA comes close to it, but the lack of actual simulation in its vehicles doesn't really do it for me.

[karambiatos]

DCS:tunguska?

 

aah, i can dream.

[Irregular programming]

DCS: Trains

[Steel Jaw]

Curious.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Mower

[NineLine]

The best tank sim in the world already exists. I have it. I know. If you know about that genre you will know of what I speak.

 

I implore ED to focus on aircraft, and in particular the DCS Hornet C.

 

Not the same team working on the Hornet, this shouldnt affect the Hornet what so ever.

[BitMaster]

This is only a logical step towards a full blown Battlefield with all kinds of arms involved.

 

Many other "Games" went that approach and succeeded but where not a "Sim". See Battlefield Series, Wargame European Escalation etc...

 

The tricky part is to keep the game balanced so it still makes fun to participate in those Battles

in one of the many choices you then have, be it a Fixed Wing, Heli, Tank, AAA, SAM or whatever.

This is the harder part I guess. Doing it technically is one thing but keep it enjoyable a totally different issue with totally different arguments. Combine those two and you have a winner title.

 

..and the Locomotive..BRING IT ON !!!!

[maturin]

Can Edge approach a Steel Beasts level of terrain detail?

 

Because no matter how good your vehicle sim is, playing on a featureless blurry plain is pointless. A tank isn't worth anything without a battlefield, and even Steel Beasts is pretty dismal on that front. They'd be better off developing an ArmA DLC.

 

On the other hand, this will force them to pull the engine's head out of it ass and make trees block vision.

[Silver_Dragon]

You take conclusion based on old TFCGE engine. Wait to EDGE engine to compare them.

[NineLine]

You take conclusion based on old TFCGE engine. Wait to EDGE engine to compare them.

 

 

+1, if they are planning a more detailed Tank simulation, I would think better terrain is on their minds...

[Raven68]

You take conclusion based on old TFCGE engine. Wait to EDGE engine to compare them.

 

+1, if they are planning a more detailed Tank simulation, I would think better terrain is on their minds...

 

[lmp]

I really hope the "armored vehicle" turns out to be a Tunguska or some other air defense unit for a number of reasons.

 

First off, ground combat in DCS is not nearly detailed enough. Terrain fidelity is too low, armor penetration, damage model, infantry combat, ground AI are all very simplistic. It all just pales in comparison with Steel Beasts or even ArmA. A lot of work would need to go into this that would mostly not benefit other modules.

 

OTOH air combat is already much more detailed and any changes that would need to go into for example EW would also benefit the flyboys ;).

 

Another thing is competitive multiplayer. If I'm in a tank, and you're in an airplane or gunship, I'm having no fun, cause my only option is to die. A tanker has no realistic means of fighting air threats, aviation trumps armor. In case of air defense vs. aviation, things are much more even.

 

Lastly, if you really want to shoot ground targets, those 30mm autocannons will do the job pretty well as long as you're not going up against a tank ;).

[mwd2]

A platoon of tanks (under human control) could be fun...but is the netcode good enough to have different tank platoons, A-10Cs or Ka-50s or Su-25s flights for CAS and F-15C/Su-27 for CAP all on one server???

[NineLine]

 

First off, ground combat in DCS is not nearly detailed enough. Terrain fidelity is too low, armor penetration, damage model, infantry combat, ground AI are all very simplistic. It all just pales in comparison with Steel Beasts or even ArmA. A lot of work would need to go into this that would mostly not benefit other modules.

 

All this would change if it was to be a DCS level module, which it sounds like that is the case.

[VincentLaw]

A lot of work would need to go into this that would mostly not benefit other modules.

An AA would be good, but I think it is important to lay the foundation for future third party modules. All of this work needs to be done anyway.

Another thing is competitive multiplayer. If I'm in a tank, and you're in an airplane or gunship, I'm having no fun, cause my only option is to die. A tanker has no realistic means of fighting air threats, aviation trumps armor. In case of air defense vs. aviation, things are much more even.

If you join a server that puts unsupported player tanks vs. a squadron of A-10s, it is the mission designers fault. Not every mission needs to support every module. Besides, the one time I drove a tank online in DCS I managed to destroy three player helicopters. humans can use the environment for cover much more intelligently than AI, which is content to simply scatter into a formation of static targets. Edited April 2, 2014 by VincentLaw

[Darkwolf]

Steel Beast can be the best, it is pricy and ugly, so not many people are interrested.

 

After SBP, they is only WW2OL and ArmA. The first one is great, but also ugly and expensive as it's monthly basis. The second one could be great and has a lot of potential... yet BIS clearly shown they have no interrest at all in simulators. So it's damn Shitty at the moment. And afterward... hell. . . BF.. WoT...

 

They is a clear and huge HOLE between SPB and the other games I mentionned. DCS has a great potentiel to fill that gap. I'm really happy that Eagle Dynamics is taking that path. It may not be interresting for SPB users. But believe me, I believe a lot of my friends will buy it straight away, and most of them aren't DCS pilots or only occasionnally. :joystick:

[lmp]

I'm not saying a tank module wouldn't be fun or can't be done well, I just see more potential in a SAM/AAA module. But we'll see :).

[NineLine]

Yeah, comparing SB or Arma or anything else really isnt possible, ED is doing their own thing. Elements may be comparable from a certain point of view, but looking at the whole picture, there isnt much to compare it to.

[NineLine]

I'm not saying a tank module wouldn't be fun or can't be done well, I just see more potential in a SAM/AAA module. But we'll see :).

 

I think the Tunguska was one of the ones mentioned by ED that they might want to do, but I could be wrong.

[Silver_Dragon]

I think a SAM/AAA module have more complicate to make on DCS: W or a APC/IFV/MBT module (only take a look of SamSimulator ZSU-23-4 and Sa-8A), request some implements and features a little far of a "simple" Fire Ballistic computer or manual operate fire controls. Otherwise, I love see that level of simulation level SAM/AAA in the future (and Hpash involved into them ;)).

 

Otherwise, a Main Battle Tanks / IFV Company / Battalion played by human players with harcore modules can be a great party.

[eurofor]

Clearly there is potential and I'm very much looking forward to see what they come up with.

[VincentLaw]

Since we don't have a wishlist (or section) for DCS:Armor yet, I am going to put this here: