Realistic soldiers

[3WA]

But, it's DCS, Digital Combat Simulation, not DCFS as in Digital Combat Flight Simulator. Its very name indicates it's designed to be MORE than just a combat flight sim. Just Saying.

 

 

THIS. For now, I too wish them to concentrate on flight sim, because they are working on the F-18 and F-16, and this is bringing in pretty much new EVERYTHING.

But, later, when the dust settles, I definitely want them to start looking at the Ground. Vehicles and FPS infantry. The nearest we have to a vision of this type of "World" is Arma. And it SUCKS. Bugfest from HELL. Non-celestial light goes right through mountains and buildings. And they never intend to fix it. I don't think they are even going to come back again with a new game, as their ancient engine has hit it's limits. They basically coded themselves into a corner, and they've just given up. There are other engines, that are less buggy, but also less capable, and they also SUCK.

 

 

DCS has already done the hardest thing there is to do. FLIGHT SIM. No one else ( except maybe BMS ) comes CLOSE. NO WAY these other "sims" are going to ever even attempt Realistic Flight Sim. So DCS: World has them beat HANDS DOWN! Go the arma route, and you will be KING of the Sim World. Yes, it will take years. We DCS fanatics are used to that. But after you get the F-18 / F-16 ( and the Shark and A-10 Fixed! ) in good working order and all functions go, it would be nice to see a start toward vehicle modules and FPS.

 

 

 

This is DCS chance to break out of the NICHE flight sim market, and grab every FPS / Vehicle Sim enthusiast out there. Arma is DEAD. Time for DCS to take the Crown and grab their players. THIS IS HOW YOU MAKE MONEY.

 

 

Heh, back when you gave us the free weekend with the F-18, and the Persian Gulf map, I crashed my jet on the Persian Gulf map, and decided to take a walk around. Not bad! It was night, really dark, and you could hear the roar of the jets overhead. After walking around and admiring the scenery, I stood on top of a hill, and watched the battles going on in the sky. I think this sim has real potential to become THE flight / vehicle / fps sim.

Edited May 4, 2019 by 3WA

[Kev2go]

THIS. For now, I too wish them to concentrate on flight sim, because they are working on the F-18 and F-16, and this is bringing in pretty much new EVERYTHING.

But, later, when the dust settles, I definitely want them to start looking at the Ground. Vehicles and FPS infantry. The nearest we have to a vision of this type of "World" is Arma. And it SUCKS. Bugfest from HELL. Non-celestial light goes right through mountains and buildings. And they never intend to fix it. I don't think they are even going to come back again with a new game, as their ancient engine has hit it's limits. They basically coded themselves into a corner, and they've just given up. There are other engines, that are less buggy, but also less capable, and they also SUCK.

 

 

DCS has already done the hardest thing there is to do. FLIGHT SIM. No one else ( except maybe BMS ) comes CLOSE. NO WAY these other "sims" are going to ever even attempt Realistic Flight Sim. So DCS: World has them beat HANDS DOWN! Go the arma route, and you will be KING of the Sim World. Yes, it will take years. We DCS fanatics are used to that. But after you get the F-18 / F-16 ( and the Shark and A-10 Fixed! ) in good working order and all functions go, it would be nice to see a start toward vehicle modules and FPS.

 

 

 

This is DCS chance to break out of the NICHE flight sim market, and grab every FPS / Vehicle Sim enthusiast out there. Arma is DEAD. Time for DCS to take the Crown and grab their players. THIS IS HOW YOU MAKE MONEY.

 

 

Heh, back when you gave us the free weekend with the F-18, and the Persian Gulf map, I crashed my jet on the Persian Gulf map, and decided to take a walk around. Not bad! It was night, really dark, and you could hear the roar of the jets overhead. After walking around and admiring the scenery, I stood on top of a hill, and watched the battles going on in the sky. I think this sim has real potential to become THE flight / vehicle / fps sim.

 

No its not.

 

Besides id rather have ED team continue to focuses thier resources on their area of expertise (flight simulation, the main point of DCS) instead of scope creeping and taking away resources on totally different gameplay type.

Edited May 5, 2019 by Kev2go

[Fri13]

THIS. For now, I too wish them to concentrate on flight sim, because they are working on the F-18 and F-16, and this is bringing in pretty much new EVERYTHING.

But, later, when the dust settles, I definitely want them to start looking at the Ground. Vehicles and FPS infantry.

 

In DCS I am never going to play a role of a soldier, that is really the most boring thing ever to do. You literally wait being around. Who wants to perform a 6 hour patrol on foot? Anyone?

How about a 2 hour CAP/CAS? Yeah.... Far more interesting even if you sit 1 hour there waiting.... As you are like a God up in the air, listening, following, observing etc.

 

What the DCS needs, is just the AI to do the heavy ground operations. The movements, the base building, the planning, ground fighting. And then just start to issue requests for air support. Issue request for reconnaissance information etc.

 

If the closest ever we get in the ground units is the Wargame series, then that is more than fine. As that gameplay slowed down by 10x for a realistic manner means there is lots of job to do for helicopter pilots and for fighter pilots. Lots of trucks to blow up, lots of bridges to destroy, lots of troops positions and movements to spot and report, lots of all kind things.

 

The DCS dream will finally be the dynamic campaign, where you can keep going and and going and flying as one of the pilots among dozens, take your 1-2 hours time to fly sorties and then save the game.

 

Someone wants to clean their service weapon? LOL

Someone wants to be a vehicle commander? No...

 

Closest thing we can get is the Combined Arms, command the tank platoon, organize the infantry platoon and company attack/defence positions etc.

Let the AI do all the micro simulation.

 

I would love to sit hours looking a SAM/EW radar screen and work with the sorties roster, intelligence etc compared to anything that any infantry simulator or FPS game are about. It would be cool to land with the aircraft and get to the debriefing and report the spotted enemy troops locations and types. See that information to start mattering later by seeing later own troops moving based that etc.

 

The real war is not fast. It is extremely slow really. The germans Blitz strategy worked because everyone else were still in the trench doctrines, making Germans possible to advance even 40 km per day.

The modern war is even slower, regardless militaries are heavily mechanized and mobilized. There are just more small groups that can react quickly and get on different locations based the information, but we are not talking hundreds of kilometers, mere few kilometers really. It is more about town after town, bridge after bridge. Each hill, lake, road, railway etc being a slowdown. You are fighting everywhere at any given time. And when the fight happens, everyone wants to be a live, everyone wants to see the next day. So there is no glory hollywood style action where people stand in open and shoot each others to see which side drops first in next 30 seconds.

 

So when enemy spots an armor, lose armor, destroy one, it is behind a difficult task. Where there is one armor, there is hundreds of mens defending it, and it defending them. If there is one armor, then there is few dozen MANPAADS and cannons and possibly even SAM to cover the whole area.

 

That is why there is no such thing as "Standoff weapon" because there ain't a range that you can penetrate or stay outside of it range. And that is already something that is so stupid in many DCS missions that people set the air defence just next to the objective, nothing around it. No one would go anywhere near the airbase or airfield with any bomb, even less with rockets. There is a bridge in the valley that is strategically important? 15-30 kilometers from that bridge is the air cover that you do not go to penetrate. You might succeed, but you more likely will die while trying so.

 

And that is something DCS is not simulating at this moment at all, the whole warfare where pilots are not the rockstars, there is no easy targets like only SAM in the desert and few trucks.

Edited May 5, 2019 by Fri13

[Silver_Dragon]

Yep, but this is already present in DCS and like I said mostly 3D work, the infantry AI doesn't necessarily need to be changed, so just 3D model, texturing, animations, though most of this is already present in DCS.

 

As for time, I know it will take time, lots of it - seen how many countries there are in DCS? Heck, even if you limit it to countries in theatres there's still a fair amount of assets.

 

The actual infantry animations model coming from LOMAC / FC and was included into the actual infantry 3D models, ED make some "improvements" with the WW2 infantry, but now, with the incoming deck crew, the animation has make outside of the "infantry" 3D modelling. The old animations has been depleted and ED move to rework all "infantry" animation system.

 

Yep, this is coding... But again, this feature is already present for aircraft, I'm describing something that's already present in DCS in some regard, just not for anything other than aircraft. I'm not talking engine torturing differences here...

 

Aircraft's animations system has nothing to do with the "infantry" animation today in progress by ED, adding skeletal system to make them more realistic to infantry, ground crews, pilots, etc. The old system was only a "argument" fixed animations including on the old infantry models.

 

Yep but deck crew are different in this respect, they need far more complex animations (hand signals etc) which is not already in DCS, but infantry stuff are... I know it's not copy/paste but it's far closer to copy/paste than adding something completely new (like deck crew).

 

Hand signal has present into DCS as separate animations files to "infantry" personal from 2017-18. A russian technical 3D model, opening with 3DS Max with proper file animations (old 2018 video).

 

The actual "technical crew" 3D models has coming without animations, all animations has now separated files. We have a serie of "base" 3D model and you can "insert" that animations by code requirements to make by lua actions by request, connected with the new skeletal system.

 

Now ED need build a new branch of animations to make better foot personal. That take time by motion capture, and make the proper code, surely after the carrier crew.

Edited May 5, 2019 by Silver_Dragon

[Xilon_x]

The actual infantry animations model coming from LOMAC / FC and was included into the actual infantry 3D models, ED make some "improvements" with the WW2 infantry, but now, with the incoming deck crew, the animation has make outside of the "infantry" 3D modelling. The old animations has been depleted and ED move to rework all "infantry" animation system.

 

 

 

Aircraft's animations system has nothing to do with the "infantry" animation today in progress by ED, adding skeletal system to make them more realistic to infantry, ground crews, pilots, etc. The old system was only a "argument" fixed animations including on the old infantry models.

 

 

 

Hand signal has present into DCS as separate animations files to "infantry" personal from 2017-18. A russian technical 3D model, opening with 3DS Max with proper file animations (old 2018 video).

 

The actual "technical crew" 3D models has coming without animations, all animations has now separated files. We have a serie of "base" 3D model and you can "insert" that animations by code requirements to make by lua actions by request, connected with the new skeletal system.

 

Now ED need build a new branch of animations to make better foot personal. That take time by motion capture, and make the proper code, surely after the carrier crew.

 

 

 

 

 

 

UUaoooooooo is beautifull animation

[Kev2go]

In DCS I am never going to play a role of a soldier, that is really the most boring thing ever to do. You literally wait being around. Who wants to perform a 6 hour patrol on foot? Anyone?

How about a 2 hour CAP/CAS? Yeah.... Far more interesting even if you sit 1 hour there waiting.... As you are like a God up in the air, listening, following, observing etc.

 

What the DCS needs, is just the AI to do the heavy ground operations. The movements, the base building, the planning, ground fighting. And then just start to issue requests for air support. Issue request for reconnaissance information etc.

 

If the closest ever we get in the ground units is the Wargame series, then that is more than fine. As that gameplay slowed down by 10x for a realistic manner means there is lots of job to do for helicopter pilots and for fighter pilots. Lots of trucks to blow up, lots of bridges to destroy, lots of troops positions and movements to spot and report, lots of all kind things.

 

The DCS dream will finally be the dynamic campaign, where you can keep going and and going and flying as one of the pilots among dozens, take your 1-2 hours time to fly sorties and then save the game.

 

Someone wants to clean their service weapon? LOL

Someone wants to be a vehicle commander? No...

 

Closest thing we can get is the Combined Arms, command the tank platoon, organize the infantry platoon and company attack/defence positions etc.

Let the AI do all the micro simulation.

 

I would love to sit hours looking a SAM/EW radar screen and work with the sorties roster, intelligence etc compared to anything that any infantry simulator or FPS game are about. It would be cool to land with the aircraft and get to the debriefing and report the spotted enemy troops locations and types. See that information to start mattering later by seeing later own troops moving based that etc.

 

The real war is not fast. It is extremely slow really. The germans Blitz strategy worked because everyone else were still in the trench doctrines, making Germans possible to advance even 40 km per day.

The modern war is even slower, regardless militaries are heavily mechanized and mobilized. There are just more small groups that can react quickly and get on different locations based the information, but we are not talking hundreds of kilometers, mere few kilometers really. It is more about town after town, bridge after bridge. Each hill, lake, road, railway etc being a slowdown. You are fighting everywhere at any given time. And when the fight happens, everyone wants to be a live, everyone wants to see the next day. So there is no glory hollywood style action where people stand in open and shoot each others to see which side drops first in next 30 seconds.

 

So when enemy spots an armor, lose armor, destroy one, it is behind a difficult task. Where there is one armor, there is hundreds of mens defending it, and it defending them. If there is one armor, then there is few dozen MANPAADS and cannons and possibly even SAM to cover the whole area.

 

That is why there is no such thing as "Standoff weapon" because there ain't a range that you can penetrate or stay outside of it range. And that is already something that is so stupid in many DCS missions that people set the air defence just next to the objective, nothing around it. No one would go anywhere near the airbase or airfield with any bomb, even less with rockets. There is a bridge in the valley that is strategically important? 15-30 kilometers from that bridge is the air cover that you do not go to penetrate. You might succeed, but you more likely will die while trying so.

 

And that is something DCS is not simulating at this moment at all, the whole warfare where pilots are not the rockstars, there is no easy targets like only SAM in the desert and few trucks.

 

 

 

actualy "blitz" doctrine can work fine in the modern era if you are able to outpace your attacks to the enemy and move so fast your disrupt thier counter decision making process to effectively respond and counter such moves.

 

 

take Gulf war, or to even greater extent the 2003 invasion of iraq when in Us ground forces were already on the outskrits of baghdad after 14 days of ground operations. Since early 1980s the US doctrine has moved away from nam era attrition warfare and more and more towards maneuver warfare.

Edited May 5, 2019 by Kev2go

[Baco]

The Gulf war faced light to no opposition... But there are no more army vs army battles any more its all guerrilla , I believe its back to nam...where no army actually "holds" territory.

Last few "wars" the country was decimated but no real control over anything was achieved, Iaq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria.. cities razed millions of displaced but no victory no strategic or tactical or economic goals where met... just nothing.. just like Nam...

[Kev2go]

The Gulf war faced light to no opposition... But there are no more army vs army battles any more its all guerrilla , I believe its back to nam...where no army actually "holds" territory.

Last few "wars" the country was decimated but no real control over anything was achieved, Iaq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria.. cities razed millions of displaced but no victory no strategic or tactical or economic goals where met... just nothing.. just like Nam...

 

 

Your missing the point......

 

 

 

Irregardless of what you think of iraqi effectiveness ( or infeectivness) doesnt change the doctrine that was followed.

 

As an fyi

 

 

the reason for that was because of air power whtilted down many forces but also to a large extent strategy. Iraqis expected the coalition to push through directly through Kuwaiti border.( since the goal was liberation and not a invasion of iraq to get to Baghdad to topple saddam) Only the us marines did push through the Kuwaiti border rising the Iraqis.. The us army didnt encounter as much resistance because strategists decided wisely to instead flank the majority of coalition forces into iraq and eventually turn right going into Kuwait into another direction and at the same time seizing territory in iraq along the way. This completely threw the Iraqis off guard.

 

A more brilliant move that than just pushing strait up the middle where they were expected.

 

Now back on topic:

 

 

Doctrine is by definition: a set of guidelines and principles not hard written rules on how a military conducts a war.

 

Also a given war strategy doesn't = doctrine

 

I would suggest reading this thesis paper on the evolution of us doctrine.

 

 

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a241774.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiX3uyonofiAhVEmlkKHQEYDUMQFjADegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw1lM0XkcJx_0yLZnC3Og4et

 

 

The doctrine today " Unified Land Operations" is simply a further evolution of what was dubbed back then "airland battle " which first came up in the 1982 revision of the us army doctrine manual which was an offensive doctrine emphasizing on maneuver warfare instead of the "active defense" of the prior 1976 edition. A complete opposite change in thinking. It was broadly accepted by both the army and soon the marine corps and new revisions into the 21st century still are maneuver warfare based.

 

This adherence to that doctrine post 1991 gulf war was again to stricter ( degree in the 2003 invasion.The fast pace invasion of iraq was they way it was because commanders demanded fast paced advances irregardless of opposition. And because even civilian overseers like Rumsfeld were advocates of maneuver warfare. There is a bit on addressing Counter insurgency environment, but for a conventional army force there is a still emphasis on conventional war as that is the reason a large professional standing army still exists. You wouldn't need one or latest and greatest gadgets for aviation like the F35 if all you ever expected to fight was small scale insurgencies. Besides the Special operations forces ( US army Special Forces aka Green berets in particular) are at the forefront of dealing with counter insurgency globally anyways.

 

 

In fact in 2003 invasion (at the time) usmc major general Mattis later relieved one of his regimental commander because he was overly concerned for welfare of his men, deemed to cautious not meeting the expected pace of the general during the early days during the assualt of nasiriyah.

Edited May 11, 2019 by Kev2go