phant Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Looking at the quality of the 3D models of the buildings in the Persian Gulf map there seems to be a marked difference from the buildings on the Caucasus map (even compared to NTTR in my opinion). As a result, even the residential aggregates (including communication routes), from small towns to large cities, appear more realistic both at low and high altitudes. Still in terms of realism, the Persian Gulf housing aggregates appear more rational in terms of the arrangement of buildings on the ground: from this point of view, this level of detail would give a significant added value to the default map (Caucasus). With a better building damage model and the possibility of explorable buildings, DCS's potential for ground operations, today unexplored, is enormous. What do you think? Bye Phant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varis Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Controversial - on one hand it's not what the engine was originally designed for. On the other hand, we already have Combined Arms and ED has been pushing the envelope with a few things... how about infantry being able to deploy in a building / into cover in terrain and a few AI improvements... you're now sketching Combined Arms 2.0 here :music_whistling: SA-342 Ka-50 Mi-8 AJS-37 F-18 M2000C AV-8B-N/A Mig-15bis CA --- How to learn DCS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vitormouraa Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 Combined Arms has tons of issues, but the idea is great IMHO. I absolutely love the idea of air and ground operations together, in a study sim like DCS. It has indeed this potential, but CA needs to be improved dramatically. As well as the engine, net code, stability, performance and all that. Go to any big MP server with CA, controlling vehicles (moving from point A to B) causes significant FPS issues on these servers, that's why most of them have this prohibited. So in order to make use of this potential you need to improve these things first, as well as the AI. SplashOneGaming Discord https://splashonegaming.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterH Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 I just don't see buildings becoming explorable with internals modeled, and attempt to do it would be detrimental to the sim from a performance point of view. While it is a cool dream, it is still just a pipedream. There is a gigantic amount of potential to be explored with improvement of Combined Arms and AI for ground units, but this is not it. Infantry FPS and DCS World, in my opinion, are mutually exclusive at this point. This has been discussed many times before. Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V DCS-Dismounts Script Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cytt0rak Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 DCS with more detailed ground forces ( doesn't have to be infantry ) could add a lot of new customers considering nothing in genre comes close to DCS maps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phant Posted January 20, 2019 Author Share Posted January 20, 2019 ...it has indeed this potential, but CA needs to be improved dramatically. As well as the engine, net code, stability, performance and all that. Go to any big MP server with CA, controlling vehicles (moving from point A to B) causes significant FPS issues on these servers, that's why most of them have this prohibited. So in order to make use of this potential you need to improve these things first, as well as the AI. One of the latest newsletters (ED's non-aircraft projects 2019) indicates future interventions of this kind. I just don't see buildings becoming explorable with internals modeled, and attempt to do it would be detrimental to the sim from a performance point of view... Perhaps the implementation of Vulkan can be useful from this point of view. DCS with more detailed ground forces ( doesn't have to be infantry ) could add a lot of new customers considering nothing in genre comes close to DCS maps. That's my thoughts too. Bye Phant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Falcon Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 the implementation of Vulkan means more fps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vitormouraa Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 the implementation of Vulkan means more fps? AFAIK it means more GPU use and less CPU, so I guess that's the case generally speaking? SplashOneGaming Discord https://splashonegaming.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigskill Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Combined Arms has tons of issues, but the idea is great IMHO. I absolutely love the idea of air and ground operations together, in a study sim like DCS. It has indeed this potential, but CA needs to be improved dramatically. As well as the engine, net code, stability, performance and all that. Go to any big MP server with CA, controlling vehicles (moving from point A to B) causes significant FPS issues on these servers, that's why most of them have this prohibited. So in order to make use of this potential you need to improve these things first, as well as the AI. True but not precise, DDCS (Dynamic DCS) server was able to limit the problem exporting the code in a sort of way, allowing every day many vehicles to move around. The limitations is due to shorter waypoint and routes. It tend to stutter when you plan a long rout without wpt. Also the add of a real sling loading experience is something unique. Too bad other server dont use the same system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts