Who would purchase a Steel beasts DCS module

[Marko321]

If such a module were ever to be made available

I was wondering would it be received well by DCS players

Combined Arms is good at what it was designed for.

But as we all know its not a high fidelity armoured simulation.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Marko321

[cichlidfan]

If you mean a tank module, then ED is already working on one. At least, they have asked for relevant information.

[AlphaOneSix]

This should be interesting! :) I'm following the thread on SB.com as well. My answer, as with most things, is "it depends." But anyway, making a DCS module is something that I don't believe is possible given eSimGames limited resources. And besides, if you think non-collideable trees are a problem *now*...

Edited November 5, 2014 by AlphaOneSix

[NineLine]

Yup. Seems if this is already in the cards, individual vehicle modules that is, nothing to do with SB though.

[Marko321]

This should be interesting! :) I'm following the thread on SB.com as well. My answer, as with most things, is "it depends." But anyway, making a DCS module is something that I don't believe is possible given eSimGames limited resources. And besides, if you think non-collideable trees are a problem *now*...

 

I would disagree with you on that point AlfaOneSix

esim have the resources to make such a module there team may be small

But they have a large number of RW military contracts

So I don't think finance would be a issue they also have the technical

knowledge.

 

Just to clarify.

I am not a employee of esim nor have I been approached by any employee of esim, I am just a enthusiastic player of both DCS And Steel beasts.

Who believes to two sims would benefit hugely with integration and create

A truly unparalleled high fidelity simulation of both Air power and Armour

[dooom]

i'd buy it if i had an environment that complimented a tank sim. Just like the environmental/air physics are really important to the performance of an air sim, the presentation of the ground environment is incredibly important to tanking.

 

I used to play WWIIOL (BattlegroundEurope) and can say with confidence that the need for tree collisions is a non-negotiable "yes". In addition, varying terrain (mud, gravel etc) is also important as is increased polygon for the terrain navigation. There is also the very deep immersion factor proper skeletal infantry animations bring at the ground level.

 

In many ways, I wonder how far the DCS air community is willing to sacrifice/balance performance in the air to provide for acceptable game environment at the ground level. I'd suggest there was a reason WWIIOL had to look as "dated" as it did.

 

We will see where EDGE goes but unless SpeedTree or a similar technology is introduced to DCS, we may have a frustrating experience with the ground environment as it is.

 

Still looking forward to the possibility though.

[NineLine]

As it seems it's ED plan to push all aspects of the digital battlefield, I would assume they will do everything in their power to improve interaction with the ground.

 

i'd buy it if i had an environment that complimented a tank sim. Just like the environmental/air physics are really important to the performance of an air sim, the presentation of the ground environment is incredibly important to tanking.

 

I used to play WWIIOL (BattlegroundEurope) and can say with confidence that the need for tree collisions is a non-negotiable "yes". In addition, varying terrain (mud, gravel etc) is also important as is increased polygon for the terrain navigation. There is also the very deep immersion factor proper skeletal infantry animations bring at the ground level.

 

In many ways, I wonder how far the DCS air community is willing to sacrifice/balance performance in the air to provide for acceptable game environment at the ground level. I'd suggest there was a reason WWIIOL had to look as "dated" as it did.

 

We will see where EDGE goes but unless SpeedTree or a similar technology is introduced to DCS, we may have a frustrating experience with the ground environment as it is.

 

Still looking forward to the possibility though.

[AlphaOneSix]

I would disagree with you on that point AlfaOneSix

esim have the resources to make such a module there team may be small

But they have a large number of RW military contracts

So I don't think finance would be a issue they also have the technical

knowledge.

 

I was specifically referring to human resources. They only have 4 developers. Unless they were to do some serious hiring, they simply cannot support their consumer product, plus support their military contracts, and also develop a new product for DCS. Now if the two could be integrated (DCS/SB), as Ssnake mentioned in his post on the topic on the SB.com forums, then there is hope....unfortunately it seems that ED has declined such an offer.

[Raven434th]

I was specifically referring to human resources. They only have 4 developers. Unless they were to do some serious hiring, they simply cannot support their consumer product, plus support their military contracts, and also develop a new product for DCS. Now if the two could be integrated (DCS/SB), as Ssnake mentioned in his post on the topic on the SB.com forums, then there is hope....unfortunately it seems that ED has declined such an offer.

 

That's probably because they do not need the help...they have gone straight to the horse...general dynamics(in regards to an M1a2)...as for a Russian tanks...who can say.Same for other MBTs.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Raven434th

[cichlidfan]

I wish I had a cookie for every 'lets merge DCS with <insert game here>' thread that has been created.

 

:doh:

[NineLine]

I wish I had a cookie for every 'lets merge DCS with <insert game here>' thread that has been created.

 

:doh:

 

That would be a lot of cookies :)

 

I am sure ED has a plan for armoured stuff, its quite possible they want to lay the initial ground work before having to deal with 3rd Parties coming in and trying to learn all there is to learn as far as adding things to DCS.

[dooom]

As it seems it's ED plan to push all aspects of the digital battlefield, I would assume they will do everything in their power to improve interaction with the ground.

 

I don't doubt that at all... ED certainly has my vote of confidence in executing with best intentions. My comments are a caution that the community may not be ready for a digital battlefield yet. I recall the never-ending debate and quest for influence as the WWIIOL community fractured into ground vs. air when discussing, patches, enhancements the competition of resources (read CPU/GPU power demand).

 

I will say that the digital battlefield community can be unbelievably tight but i caution all of us to think about how me might facilitate civility when the inevitable argument arises between an M1 Abrams simmer and an F18C simmer about who's user experience has higher priority to the long tail success of DCS. Folks are pretty protective about their FPS and I was always amazed at the "we want everything without sacrificing anything" attitude in that particular digital battlefield sim. Everyone collaborated greatly on vision but fought miserably on the execution. learning from that experience now could be a good exercise for DCS.

[NineLine]

Well we are already seeing little flashes of that, people wanting maps big enough to do a refuelling at the mid point, those dont do much for someone in a tank, and if the performance issues arise for a map that size, and then ground clutter suffers because of it, the tank guys wont be happy... so I get what you are saying for sure... you have to try and balance everyones expectations.

 

 

 

I don't doubt that at all... ED certainly has my vote of confidence in executing with best intentions. My comments are a caution that the community may not be ready for a digital battlefield yet. I recall the never-ending debate and quest for influence as the WWIIOL community fractured into ground vs. air when discussing, patches, enhancements the competition of resources (read CPU/GPU power demand).

 

I will say that the digital battlefield community can be unbelievably tight but i caution all of us to think about how me might facilitate civility when the inevitable argument arises between an M1 Abrams simmer and an F18C simmer about who's user experience has higher priority to the long tail success of DCS. Folks are pretty protective about their FPS and I was always amazed at the "we want everything without sacrificing anything" attitude in that particular digital battlefield sim. Everyone collaborated greatly on vision but fought miserably on the execution. learning from that experience now could be a good exercise for DCS.

Edited November 5, 2014 by NineLine

[Marko321]

I don't doubt that at all... ED certainly has my vote of confidence in executing with best intentions. My comments are a caution that the community may not be ready for a digital battlefield yet. I recall the never-ending debate and quest for influence as the WWIIOL community fractured into ground vs. air when discussing, patches, enhancements the competition of resources (read CPU/GPU power demand).

 

I will say that the digital battlefield community can be unbelievably tight but i caution all of us to think about how me might facilitate civility when the inevitable argument arises between an M1 Abrams simmer and an F18C simmer about who's user experience has higher priority to the long tail success of DCS. Folks are pretty protective about their FPS and I was always amazed at the "we want everything without sacrificing anything" attitude in that particular digital battlefield sim. Everyone collaborated greatly on vision but fought miserably on the execution. learning from that experience now could be a good exercise for DCS.

 

 

 

Well said sir.

[Raven434th]

I have no doubt that ED can implement Armor to a high degree of realism...judging by the A10C...my worry would be that they can do it with a terrain to match. Cause if you can't do the terrain right ...you haven't got Sh@#. Having said that a "micro terrain" is concerning as well. Imagine the potential frame rate hit that might be.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Raven434th

[NineLine]

I have no doubt that ED can implement Armor to a high degree of realism...judging by the A10C...my worry would be that they can do it with a terrain to match. Cause if you can't do the terrain right ...you haven't got Sh@#.

 

From what I have seen of EDGE so far, I am not too worried...

[cichlidfan]

I have no doubt that ED can implement Armor to a high degree of realism...judging by the A10C...my worry would be that they can do it with a terrain to match. Cause if you can't do the terrain right ...you haven't got Sh@#.

 

That part is relatively easy. Making an air and ground sim that looks decent and actually runs acceptably is a whole different story.

 

Personally, I don't think it can be done, as a practical matter, on a level that will be acceptable to both camps.

[Raven434th]

That part is relatively easy. Making an air and ground sim that looks decent and actually runs acceptably is a whole different story.

 

Personally, I don't think it can be done, as a practical matter, on a level that will be acceptable to both camps.

 

I edited my post to reflect that as well.

[Raven434th]

From what I have seen of EDGE so far, I am not too worried...

 

God I hope your right

[Marko321]

That part is relatively easy. Making an air and ground sim that looks decent and actually runs acceptably is a whole different story.

 

Personally, I don't think it can be done, as a practical matter, on a level that will be acceptable to both camps.

 

Good point.

The second issue IMO would there be a big enough market for both company's to see a return for there investment.

If you would like to see this happen please comment.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Marko321

[Raven434th]

Good point.

The second issue IMO would there be a bid enough market for both company's to see a return for there investment.

If you would like to see this happen please comment.

 

Between Esim and Ed??...don't think its needed...and to be honest I'd rather they didn't as it might kick Esim in the ass to start supporting and improving their product to suit their "lesser priority" customers more. Competition is a mighty incentive.

[cichlidfan]

I don't think it would be in Esim's best interests at all.

[NineLine]

I don't think it would be in Esim's best interests at all.

 

In the sense that they are both going in different directions, I agree... If ED is planning on release armour modules (which is sounds like they are) then I would have to guess they already have a team in place for that....

[cichlidfan]

In the sense that they are both going in different directions, I agree... If ED is planning on release armour modules (which is sounds like they are) then I would have to guess they already have a team in place for that....

 

Dilution of the product is more what I was thinking. SB doesn't benefit.

 

The folks building aircraft (i.e. VEAO, Belsimtek or Leatherneck) need ED's environment. SB does not.

Edited November 5, 2014 by cichlidfan

[NineLine]

Dilution of the product is more what I was thinking. SB doesn't benefit.

 

The folks building aircraft (i.e. VEAO, Belsimtek or Leatherneck) need ED's environment. SB does not.

 

Well. Again, that depends on their direction... which I agree would suggest they dont.