Who would purchase a Steel beasts DCS module

[BitMaster]

What I wanted to say, YES, bring it on :)

 

but it takes time to get the codes right and the hardware to develop so we can actually run it on machines we can pay for and not have to sell our house for.

 

There is no real reason why this shouldnt be talked about and put on the table as it is a valid request by forum members and a good option to make money and extend the reach to other genres.

 

Start now so you are done in 5 years when the HW is powerfull enough.

 

Right now we struggle with lagging servers, water cooled CPU's to keep up with ever growing missions and a few valuable guys that actually can make missions that are worth playing if there is nothing going on online.

 

Step by step

 

Bit

[vicx]

DCS is perhaps not ready for tanks due to the terrain fidelity required to make it play well.

 

I think that air defense units would make a more natural expansion. I wouldn't mind an FC3 type expansion for some of the SAM units in the game. Give them cockpits or helios type interfaces and work on the avionics and sensors, so the player can use utilise them directly.

 

I think a Tor unit would be good. Can search, lock, shoot on the run and can intercept aircraft and missiles. Would defend strategic target and convoy from aircraft and missile attack.

 

I have no idea if these cockpits are of Tor or OSA.

 

OSA is an older design combination of radar and optic guided. Needs a pit with a Shkval type TV sensor to lock and track targets like in this video. BTW I do not think Greeks humliated Turkish AF just the uploader of video gave it that title.

 

That pilot would have no tone ... but he is locked up. Maybe on launch he would get tone depending on missile guidance selected by operator. With radar for missile to lead target, without radar for lag target (Best guess)

Edited November 13, 2014 by vicx
typo

[Rogue Trooper]

A DCS Tiger I would be superb

[Marko321]

DCS is perhaps not ready for tanks due to the terrain fidelity required to make it play well.

 

I think that air defense units would make a more natural expansion. I wouldn't mind an FC3 type expansion for some of the SAM units in the game. Give them cockpits or helios type interfaces and work on the avionics and sensors, so the player can use utilise them directly.

 

I think a Tor unit would be good. Can search, lock, shoot on the run and can intercept aircraft and missiles. Would defend strategic target and convoy from aircraft and missile attack.

 

 

OSA is an older design combination of radar and optic guided. Needs a pit with a Shkval type TV sensor to lock and track targets like in this video. BTW I do not think Greeks humliated Turkish AF just the uploader of video gave it that title.

 

That pilot would have no tone ... but he is locked up. Maybe on launch he would get tone depending on missile guidance selected by operator. With radar for missile to lead target, without radar for lag target (Best guess)

 

There is a Sam Simulator that a Hungarian guy made.

Not sure if it would make for a very exciting module would only appeal to Some hard core players , But I agree if we ever get a high fidelity ground force the AAA in steel beasts would have to be up to scratch other wise ground units would just be cannon fodder for the fly boys.

 

https://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

[vicx]

I checked out SAM sim. The SAM sim forums are great, lots of info. They love SAM for sure.

 

I downloaded but I have not played the Sim yet because on all the screenshots there are funny letters everywhere. I installed Devrim mods the first day I played DCS because I am not hardcore enough to read Russian. If only Devrim culd do an English SAM pit for the OSA.

 

Anyway air defense does not just have to be missles. There are WW2 options too or the Flak Panzer with missiles - Tunguska.

 

===

 

Back to DCS:Tank. I understand the desire for a DCS level ground unit and clearly in this thread looks like the M1A1 is quite popular. I would most certainly support ANY DCS ground unit without hesitation because I know that a DCS level ground unit would contribute improvements back to CA. No doubts, it has happened with DCS modules and FC.

 

Can someone post the best Steelbeasts video they have seen. I would like to see the best Steelbeast features from a DCS fan perspective.

[Flying Penguin]

Not an exciting WW3 type scenario (a convoy rescue), but the best Steel Beasts video I've ever seen, recorded on one of the BG ANZAC nights:

 

L9qRjobinP8

 

Bear in mind that several of the players in the video are serving or ex tankers, and it is being played VERY seriously......

[vicx]

Wow that looks more primitive than I was expecting, kinda like a mod for Operation Flashpoint. The terrain and the enemy infantry ... :shocking:

 

The other things I drew from watching

• Most of the action happens in the scope, targeting and map views.
  
• The 3D cockpit is cool, and popping in and out of the hatch is a nice effect, but it doesn't strike me as the most important element in what makes SB work.
  
• The map view and of course the radio stand out as being well done and quite significant factors in realism.
  

Watching this makes me realise that BI should really have SB players on-board. Everything I saw in this video is in A3(via mods) and is done better or can be modded to be better. I feel confident about that especially after checking on some of the MANW competition entries.

 

The only thing missing from A3 (and it could be a deal breaker) is that armour penetration and damage modelling is an on-going project. Material penetration is in the game and you can lose sensors and drive components and hurt individual tank crew members BUT high-fidelity modelling of armour penetration resistance to munitions is not in the game AND high-fidelity modelling of damage to individual components is also not in the game.

 

Anyway I'm not sure that DCS is in an equal position to Arma in terms of being able to satisfy tank simmers. What are the things that have to be done right?

• Is it armour penetration and damage modelling? That isn't in DCS either and it might remain out of reach.
  
• You could get the most wonderful 3D cockpit. That is a DCS speciality and falls within capabilties.
  
• The radios could be exceptionally modelled. A DCS speciality.
  
• The scopes, map and targeting might be able to done right now. Focusing on "operationally" significant screens and views.
  
• You will get an A2 level of terrain fidelity in Nevada. There are no trees (so that avoids a DCS AI problem).
  
• The AI of ground units. Lets not talk about that. It is a DCS weakpoint.
  
• If you want the excitement of being a moving target you will have that.
  

 

I'd be curious to see a ranking of elements important to a potential DCS tank simmer.

Edited November 15, 2014 by vicx

[Marko321]

Wow that looks more primitive than I was expecting, kinda like a mod for Operation Flashpoint. The terrain and the enemy infantry ... :shocking:

 

The other things I drew from watching

• 
  
• Most of the action happens in the scope, targeting and map views.
  
• The 3D cockpit is cool, and popping in and out of the hatch is a nice effect, but it doesn't strike me as the most important element in what makes SB work.
  
• The map view and of course the radio stand out as being well done and quite significant factors in realism.
  

Watching this makes me realise that BI should really have SB players on-board. Everything I saw in this video is in A3(via mods) and is done better or can be modded to be better. I feel confident about that especially after checking on some of the MANW competition entries.

 

The only thing missing from A3 (and it could be a deal breaker) is that armour penetration and damage modelling is an on-going project. Material penetration is in the game and you can lose sensors and drive components and hurt individual tank crew members BUT high-fidelity modelling of armour penetration resistance to munitions is not in the game AND high-fidelity modelling of damage to individual components is also not in the game.

 

Anyway I'm not sure that DCS is in an equal position to Arma in terms of being able to satisfy tank simmers. What are the things that have to be done right?

• 
  
• Is it armour penetration and damage modelling? That isn't in DCS either and it might remain out of reach.
  
• You could get the most wonderful 3D cockpit. That is a DCS speciality and falls within capabilties.
  
• The radios could be exceptionally modelled. A DCS speciality.
  
• The scopes, map and targeting might be able to done right now. Focusing on "operationally" significant screens and views.
  
• You will get an A2 level of terrain fidelity in Nevada. There are no trees (so that avoids a DCS AI problem).
  
• The AI of ground units. Lets not talk about that. It is a DCS weakpoint.
  
• If you want the excitement of being a moving target you will have that.
  

 

I'd be curious to see a ranking of elements important to a potential DCS tank simmer.

 

I would have to disagree with you on a couple of points.

I will admit the graphics in Arma 3 are superior then SB

What makes SB a cut above Arma is the level of accuracy and realism they have spent over ten years working to make SB as accurate as possible. its used by over a dozen Armies including your own ADF the aussie guy in the video is a High ranking aussie officer with responsibility for training your armoured officers he uses SB for the task.

I do agree its well within DCS/ED capability to make a high fidelity armoured Simulation. but It would take a long time and a lot of money to be any ware Near as accurate as SB the armour simulation market is even more niche Then fixed and rotary wing models currently in DCS.

Personally and this IMO, some type of partnership between DCS/esim is the Way forward.

[vicx]

Yeah I have just watched a few SB Pro videos on youtube and the graphical quality is a lot higher than the video posted in this thread.

 

In these other videos the systems level detail is also a LOT more evident. Maybe the people in the videos weren't driving realistic scenarios but it gave me a good look at all the stations. The stations have realistic operation.

 

In one video a tank got hit by a TOW and although it was a shame for the crew, I was satisfied that the turret blew off. You can hear also the sounds of firing and impacts that are unique to the munitions used. Some tanks are taking small arms fire and it sounds as you would expect.

 

And I got more of a look at the tactical map which is just a great looking map.

 

It is also evident that the infantry simulation is really not that good but still a thousand times better than DCS. It is best to be honest about these things.

 

So each game/sim specialist remains untouchable in their area of specialty. I think the federated server approach is only half a solution and not completely satisfactory, but it should be pursued or encouraged as a matter of course (no deals or enticements should be necessary). It makes sense for industry leaders to do this.

[NineLine]

Guys, this was a thread about a Steel Beasts type module for DCS, I would rather not see it degrade into a discussion thread on SB or a comparison of DCS and SB.

[Flying Penguin]

Wow that looks more primitive than I was expecting, kinda like a mod for Operation Flashpoint. The terrain and the enemy infantry ... :shocking:

There has been a patch (3.011) since that video which improves the lighting and effects significantly, but no-one ever played SB for the graphics ;)

 

The other things I drew from watching

• Most of the action happens in the scope, targeting and map views.
  
• The 3D cockpit is cool, and popping in and out of the hatch is a nice effect, but it doesn't strike me as the most important element in what makes SB work.
  
• The map view and of course the radio stand out as being well done and quite significant factors in realism.
  

 

When looking at SB, it's important to remember that the entertainment market represents a very small percentage of their total sales (they won't give exact figures but they have hinted it's touch and go whether it's even in double digit percentages), it is designed as a learning tool first and foremost. Anything that doesn't contribute to desired learning objectives for their big customers isn't worked on (with a couple of exceptions), Entertainment isn't a space they choose to really play in and it shows, for better or worse.

 

The 3D cockpit you see most of is the CV90, which was built for the Finnish Army for familiarisation, similar to A-10C and the National Guard. Not all vehicles have that level of detail, it depends on which of their military customers are willing to pay for the custom build.

 

What that video doesn't show (and which is one of the major differentiators for their biggest customers) is the planning and mission editing capabilities, both pre and during engagements. Whilst is is possible to script and plan in both DCS and A3, the mission editing/planning/map functionality (they share the same interface) in SB has the most capable gui based and scripting free battle planning ability bar none. Careful use of triggers, conditions and default low level TacAI behaviours can give you a coherent and flexible battle plan in very little time and importantly, results are much more nuanced than DCS and much more intuitive and repeatable than A3 (where the AI seems to be much more empowered).

 

Watching this makes me realise that BI should really have SB players on-board. Everything I saw in this video is in A3(via mods) and is done better or can be modded to be better. I feel confident about that especially after checking on some of the MANW competition entries.

 

The only thing missing from A3 (and it could be a deal breaker) is that armour penetration and damage modelling is an on-going project. Material penetration is in the game and you can lose sensors and drive components and hurt individual tank crew members BUT high-fidelity modelling of armour penetration resistance to munitions is not in the game AND high-fidelity modelling of damage to individual components is also not in the game.

 

What is keeping SB players from jumping to A3? It's relatively simple, damage modelling (yes, it's a deal breaker), map variety, impenetrable mission scripting, questionable low level TacAI behaviour (things like not automatically seeking hull down or turret down if reloading ready ammo from store) and piss poor planning interface (really, it's very bad for making detailed battle plans, even modded).

 

That's not to say A3 is bad at what it does. Modded appropriately and with player control at the platoon level or lower, it's the best small scale combined arms sim bar none. Plus it's gorgeous to boot, at least in comparison with Steel Beasts. But get above a platoon or two or try to plan an engagement in detail and the cracks start to show. Planning a battalion sized engagement, including recovery and resupply, in A3 genuinely scares me.

 

If you want to see the mission editor in action, this guy has done a complete walkthrough of mission creation. It's very long winded, but note zero scripting required.... https://www.youtube.com/user/ToyguyVT/videos (Part 8 shows the triggers)

 

 

 

Anyway I'm not sure that DCS is in an equal position to Arma in terms of being able to satisfy tank simmers. What are the things that have to be done right?

• Is it armour penetration and damage modelling? That isn't in DCS either and it might remain out of reach.
  
• You could get the most wonderful 3D cockpit. That is a DCS speciality and falls within capabilties.
  
• The radios could be exceptionally modelled. A DCS speciality.
  
• The scopes, map and targeting might be able to done right now. Focusing on "operationally" significant screens and views.
  
• You will get an A2 level of terrain fidelity in Nevada. There are no trees (so that avoids a DCS AI problem).
  
• The AI of ground units. Lets not talk about that. It is a DCS weakpoint.
  
• If you want the excitement of being a moving target you will have that.
  

 

I'd be curious to see a ranking of elements important to a potential DCS tank simmer.

 

So, what would I want to see if DCS was ever to replace SB on my hard drive?

 

Firstly, I've no doubt that ED can make a stunning and functional representation of any tank they can get access to. What is going to make the difference between a must buy and a white elephant is how much of the wider engine they are willing to adjust to accommodate ground warfare.

 

Off the top of my head and in no particular order:

• Trees that can't be seen through by the AI or driven through by anyone (actually, the same goes for things like fences atm)
  
• AI massively improved, both for enemy and for your own units
  
• Penetration and damage modelling improved, including fixing the over powered HE. Note that this will need to encompass all vehicles in the game, no point having an M1 with an armour model as realistic as possible without joining up if everything else is working on hit points.
  
• Ability to order artillery quickly and in terms that make sense (tubes, rounds per tube, rate)
  
• Detailed battle planning including triggers and branching instructions
  
• Overhauled orders from the main map
  
• Status reports from friendly units (under fire, enemy spotted etc)
  
• Increase terrain mesh resolution to provide much more in the way of terrain detail (current bowling green map provides little in the way of smaller hull down positions, not convinced from screenshots that Nevada is quite there either)
  
• Improved thermal imaging
  
• And probably a whole bunch of things I can't think of right now....
  

 

Now that's a lot of text, I should shut up now, but suffice to say that there is an awful lot of stuff that would need to be done for a SB (or SB like) module, nothing insurmountable, but much of which involves fundamental engine changes. You could put a high fidelity tank in DCS, but that's just the first step to actually getting at what Steel Beasts is, which is a classroom training tool for people that really do this....

 

Steel Beasts in it's natural environment:

 

Cheers,

 

Jamie

Edited November 15, 2014 by Flying Penguin