Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I think military sims do not need the world, but need different theaters, I don´t see anybody deploying from NAS, to Iraq in real simulated time...

This.

i9-14900KS | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | ASUS TUF GeForce RTX 4090 OC | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Posted
OT

This is very important but .... no news about it for too long.

I hope ED will give us news very soon.

 

/OT

 

Same here, very high priority in a flight sim imho.

Posted

The problem of reproducing the whole world with sufficient 3D details concerns the technology of PCs and programmers the only whole world digitized and done well on PCs and GOOGLE EARTH there is no alternative to google earth.

 

The Google Earth runs on the web browser, it runs amazingly well in the VR. Seriously, if you have VR, get the Google Earth. Go to some high fidelity locations like New York, Paris, some German famous locations etc and your mind is blown out by how you can fly through the places, the 3D scanned buildings from aircrafts etc.

 

It is just STUPIDLY AMAZING.

 

It feels like if you would be a 5 year old who get to go to legoland, or if your mind can be so flexible like a child and you love to do models like train models etc and you get to do this:

 

Okay, that set is better, but you come so close with Google Earth in VR. You sit on the floor and you just.... It is amazing.

 

Now, take that for a flight sim? It is possible. But lets be honest. It would be far more interesting to fly in a airliner and then to land on the high fidelity airports and fly over big cities etc. Than do any combat.

 

In combat, we need far more details in the ground level. We need infantry, transportation, logistics, base building, defence lines etc. The combat is not "There is a tank, lets blow it up with Mk.82". That lacks totally the reality in the real war. There would be thousands of infantry with gazillong of anti-air weapons tens of miles around that single tank. You would not go anywhere near that tank with a A-10 if it would be a actual full war in europe.

You wouldn't fly around at sky and circle waiting that someone calls you that there is a high value target for you to dive in and bomb, covered just by a one SAM.

 

The problem in the current DCS is that we, virtual pilots, are like a guitarists in a rock band, thinking that we are the rock stars and other members in the band, especially the bass players, are nothing.

While in reality in the war, it is the ground janter that does all the heavy lifting. All the advancements, all the work really. The most destructive force there is, is the artillery. The artillery tens of kilometers from the target. Pilots are nothing if there is no ground troops. The air force exist solely to support the ground troops. You can own the skies, but you don't own the ground. And if you don't own the ground, you don't own anything.

 

And that is what DCS really needs, high fidelity, high amount of ground troops, going around and fighting the more realistic combat. Advancing slowly, carefully, engaging long periods etc. And the pilot up in the skies is just used to break some matched situations to get the edge for the ground troops to push forward without casualties.

 

A 5x3 kilometer area is huge combat area for ground troops. For a pilot, it is just a airfield. Where pilot can think about flying 150 kilometers to drop a two bombs, a soldier on the ground is thinking next 200 meters in forest or one block in a city.

 

So we can talk about these whole world maps, but it is really more about a series of different locations from the whole world, in a 300 x 500 km map areas to fly. And so far we have too much these classical US point of view areas, and too little the historical possibile cold war situations like Fulda Cap. A endless amount of possible scenarios to make in a such map, where nothing really happened.

 

A Baltic Sea would be amazing location. Infinity amount of scenarios for Soviet-Sweden or Soviet-Germany or Soviet-Finland scenarios. Air missions, sea missions, strike missions, shore missions etc. All kind things that never really happened.

 

But it would require someone like a Tom Clancy to write the scenarios and build complete one week operations for a start of a campaign.

 

Give a sandbox for a kid, and they can build a whole world in that sandbox, neve leaving that small sandbox.

 

We don't need whole world, we need multiple sandboxes, all scattered around the world.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Posted
I remember my first 40MB hard drive. I thought I could never fill it. What is that nowadays? One hi-res photo. Maybe.

 

Lucky to you. The 25MB I had was like infinity space. Then the first 160MB was huge upgrade from 100MB.

 

And then a Half-Life happened, 5.6GB drive was really needed.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Posted

 

We don't need whole world, we need multiple sandboxes, all scattered around the world.

 

YEAP, exactly that.

Posted

But DCS (Well, The Battle Simulator) have already signaled their intention to model the whole world.

 

 

 

  • New theaters in development: Syria, Crimea, and Afghanistan

Using our partnerships, it is our priority to build a broad array of aircraft systems and terrains, to the point of modeling the entire globe.

 

 

My bold. I know TBS and DCS are essentially the same team, so it would make sense that the development paths would be one in the same?

Laptop Pilot. Alienware X17, i9 11980HK 5.0GHz, 16GB RTX 3080, 64GB DDR4 3200MHz, 2x2TB NVMe SSD. 2x TM Warthog, Hornet grip, Virpil CM2 & TPR pedals, Virpil collective, Cougar throttle, Viper ICP & MFDs,  pit WIP (XBox360 when traveling). Quest 3S.

Wishlist: Tornado, Jaguar, Buccaneer, F-117 and F-111.

Posted (edited)
But DCS (Well, The Battle Simulator) have already signaled their intention to model the whole world.

 

 

 

 

 

My bold. I know TBS and DCS are essentially the same team, so it would make sense that the development paths would be one in the same?

 

The old Battle Simulator has very outdated and yet has none to do with actual DCS World. Has plans to build a "Whole World" technology, but has a far plan actually. Crimea has none confirmed by ED and actually has depleted by a "political" issue. About Afghanistan, no news has show about on develop yet.

Edited by Silver_Dragon

For Work/Gaming: 28" Philips 246E Monitor - Ryzen 7 1800X - 32 GB DDR4 - nVidia RTX1080 - SSD 860 EVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 2 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Warthog / TPR / MDF

Posted
I think military sims do not need the world, but need different theaters, I don´t see anybody deploying from NAS, to Iraq in real simulated time...

Why not? Long flights aren't all that uncommon in sims where you can fly the distance. Also if we ever get the ability to save a flight, this becomes even easier. A combat flight sim is still a flight sim, and flying is part of the fun.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

  • 5 months later...
Posted

I totally agree with Exorcet

I9 12900k@ 5 GHz | 32 GB DDR4 | Asus ROG  Strix Z690-A Gaming Wifi d4| RTX 3090 | 6 TB SSD + 8 TB HDD | 4K Samsung Q90R 55" | VKB MK III PRO L | Virpil Throttle MONGOOST-50 | MFG Crosswind | TrackIR5

Posted

It shouldn't get all the way down to a FPS, an upgraded CA experience is already out there, out of flight sim, but I guess DCS's vision may not be just flight sim, hence the name doesn't include anything that limit it to just flight. You would get more people in that will demand more improvements to that area, and then it becomes another FPS circus, there's going to be people playing just FPS then, the whole engine would have to be done for FPS, it's a steep mountain if you try to do realism, proper gunplay is already not that simple and realism would mean all animations and all things have to sync up with physics and all the stuff, then what about damage, it would be all about the biology, how much can a body take, stamina, infection, blood loss, first aid, bullet physics piercing helmet physics, it's not just about slapping a FPS camera to a ground unit, but as soon as that is done, people will demand more and more, and crying about how "DCS FPS play sux". This is the case when having something extra is detrimental, it lowers the value of everything else that's great.

 

Even the dynamic campaign RTS stuff is way outside of pure flight sim, but we all agree that a good theater is needed for a good flight sim experience, we all need to step back for a moment and look at what we already have branching out, there is a lot a lot lot lot of the stuff that can keep DCS busy with just the immediate theater around flight sim, groun unit bases, forward spotter, signal simulation, tower, comm, detection, comm interception, all kinds of cargo movement, transport, resuuply, basic base construction maintenance for the AI, wide body jets gunship or transport, paradrop units, vehicles, reinforcements, scavanging and savlage system being able to capture certain civilian/neutral facilities (not necessairly the static map objects)

 

ED has already expanded way beyond what flight sim is already if we take a step beck, ground trains, even customizable in editor, I never thought I would see them, it's great, neutral tankers and ship stuff probably makes sense too, but too much of cookies way branched out feels spoiled, so there has to be a limit. Let's expand and focus on the closer branches, so we have trains, they could be expanded to provide actual gameplay mehanic transporting cargo ,supplies, ammo, units, fuel, and they would be actually commandable (NOT DRIVABLE) by the battlefield commanders, they would issue orders to train to go there or here and there would be some basic signaling like in real life so trains don't collide but that's it, no train-driver view needed.

 

Chasing cookies will always end up in spoilment of the community, and just like sugar, it's addictive and can't get enough of it.

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2. Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria

 

Posted
But DCS (Well, The Battle Simulator) have already signaled their intention to model the whole world.

 

I think the "whole world" idea is more like a professional training thing where if some countries order some airplanes and a piece of software to train pilots they would kinda pick their own back yard to train in, which wouldn't be that much detailed, I don't see the immediate professional entertainment value of modelling the whole world unless it's a civilian flight sim, but hey not saying it's not impossible or that it wouldn't be interesting.

 

About Crimea, it's understandably a special case, but I think it's actually good that it got delayed because we might have perhaps two version of Crimea, the old and the new with all the highways and railroads.

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2. Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria

 

  • 1 year later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Strangely enough, my number one wish with a future DCS 3.0 is that they actually charge me for it! Not a subscription, just a one off $50-80 purchase.

 

The problem with the DCS economic model at the moment is all the outdated areas that desperately need attention, such as AI, ATC, comms weather, mission planning, etc etc, are part of the “free” DCS world, and hence provide limited to zero return on investment. Whilst improvements are on the way in all these areas, the reason some take decades to become reality is simply because resources need to go to revenue generating modules first.

 

Personally, I’d love to see a 2-5 year release cycle for the base DCS, charging me once each time. If the majority of users upgrade with each new version, it would instantly become their biggest earner, and therefore rightfully receive the appropriate resources required to continually enhance the core sim at a much faster pace.

  • Like 2
Posted

The 'free' DCS World is the gateway drug. How many of us are exclusively flying the TF-51 or Su-25T around the Caucasus?  The money comes from the modules.  The incentive for ED to improve the core game is that it will attract more users, who then go on to purchase one, many or all of the additional modules produced by ED and third parties.  Start charging $50-80 for DCS and they may see a reduction in new players.  I don't know, but I'd like to think that like any business, ED have done their homework and have a funding model which works for them. 

 

We (on this forum) are a small subset of DCS users, and having spent in some cases many thousands of dollars in on software, hardware, even full simpits specifically for this game would think nothing of dropping $50-80 every few years for an update, but perhaps the majority would not.

Laptop Pilot. Alienware X17, i9 11980HK 5.0GHz, 16GB RTX 3080, 64GB DDR4 3200MHz, 2x2TB NVMe SSD. 2x TM Warthog, Hornet grip, Virpil CM2 & TPR pedals, Virpil collective, Cougar throttle, Viper ICP & MFDs,  pit WIP (XBox360 when traveling). Quest 3S.

Wishlist: Tornado, Jaguar, Buccaneer, F-117 and F-111.

Posted (edited)

Well there could be Free DCS World Lite and the Full version unlocks for free when you buy at least 1 high-fidelity module.


Compromise of sorts, because how much costlier or how much could modules be relied upon to bring substantial core upgrades for sort of "free", so yeah, I would understand, probably some people would be upset but something has to give.

 

Oh and, if I win a lottery, i'll invest in DCS immediately, that promise still holds.

Edited by Worrazen
  • Like 1

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2. Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria

 

Posted (edited)
On 4/8/2021 at 3:57 AM, norman99 said:

The problem with the DCS economic model at the moment is all the outdated areas that desperately need attention, such as AI, ATC, comms weather, mission planning, etc etc, are part of the “free” DCS world, and hence provide limited to zero return on investment.

That's not true and devs know it. They constantly work on the free core and add more to it (even the second free map) as it does return in sales when the product is better. They do quite good in this very dynamic PC games business for like 25 years and even better when you consider very niche military study sim genre.

They do come out more to the people using social media like discord, facebook, reddit, youtube and all community help they can get on board. It pays back. Don't think you know better.

Edited by draconus
  • Like 1

🖥️ Win10  i7-10700KF  32GB  RTX4070S   🥽 Quest 3   🕹️ T16000M  VPC CDT-VMAX  TFRP   ✈️ FC3  F-14A/B  F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR  PG  Syria

Posted

Why not combine the best of both worlds and keep DCS world free for everyone while still offering an option to pay voluntary? Crowdfunding works so well these days. I would love to spend some money for the development of the core game on a regular basis. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hive said:

Why not combine the best of both worlds and keep DCS world free for everyone while still offering an option to pay voluntary? Crowdfunding works so well these days. I would love to spend some money for the development of the core game on a regular basis. 

You can still buy more modules, either for yourself or for others, it'll not be directed toward the core only though, but you will support ED as a whole.

Edited by draconus

🖥️ Win10  i7-10700KF  32GB  RTX4070S   🥽 Quest 3   🕹️ T16000M  VPC CDT-VMAX  TFRP   ✈️ FC3  F-14A/B  F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR  PG  Syria

Posted
1 minute ago, draconus said:

You still can buy more modules, either for yourself or for others, it'll not be directed toward the core only though, but you will support ED as a whole.

Yes, I know and I do. But I would like to pay for what I really want. It is strange to buy a module knowing you will never fly it just hoping it will indirectly support the core game. And it is the wrong signal as it further consolidates the necessity to develop more and more modules (which binds capacities) as it is the only way of generating revenue.

 

Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with new modules. If you want them, buy them and there will be more reflecting the demand. But if you do not want/need them, you should be able to spend your money elsewhere.

Posted
On 4/8/2021 at 4:57 AM, norman99 said:

The problem with the DCS economic model at the moment is all the outdated areas that desperately need attention, such as AI, ATC, comms weather, mission planning, etc etc, are part of the “free” DCS world, and hence provide limited to zero return on investment. Whilst improvements are on the way in all these areas, the reason some take decades to become reality is simply because resources need to go to revenue generating modules first.

 

ED takes own cut from all module sales there happens. That is put to DCS World development and support all modules.

And problem with ED is that majority of it is still based very old legacy codes and designs, and they can not just start updating individual parts without breaking backward compatibility each time. 

 

Like now is the 2.7 coming after two days and it will brake every mission custom/tweaked weathers such way that all needs to be revisited and checked and adjusted.

When later the new core features comes like new communications, new voice overs for everything etc, it will mean that things get broken again. 

When the new AI comes with RTS elements and such, it means again that everything brakes down. Hopefully we get away from legacy idea of ground units moving by the waypoints, and we move toward real command structure where you set mission goals and common doctrinal strategies and tactics and AI will work around all by itself, instead using waypoints and advanced waypoint rules and some trigger zones and scripts etc. 

If AI is wanted to be Intelligent, it needs to figure out by itself everything what needs to be done to achieve the goals. Like if you tell specific unit ("3rd Company of X" etc) to defend a 5 km wide part and tell that expected enemy direction is South-West, then the AI needs to know by itself how to move all units for defense in primary positions and where are each unit secondary positions, what are ROE for range, enemy type/amount or actions etc. The AI needs to know how to adjust things based their mission status, as if enemy overwhelms with 5:1 ratio it is then no use to be there to die for nothing when position is anyways lost no matter how player commands them to sacrifice themselves for nothing. 

 

The DCS World needs to be worked to support every other module. But if they do it, it better be done once so things gets badly broken only once instead once every year. 

37 minutes ago, Hive said:

But I would like to pay for what I really want

 

Doesn't really work that way. 

 

Example, you would want a better AI logic for SAM systems. So you give ED 50€ for that.

ED needs to first improve the whole AI logic system for all units, but before they can do that they need to rewrite the game terrain engine to add a required new path finding technology, but no one wanted to fund that.... 

 

It is just best to give money for the ED and let them to use it as they seem to be best bit. And then just vote for wishlists and discuss that how things should work. 

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Posted
32 minutes ago, Hive said:

But I would like to pay for what I really want.

That however endangers their independence. As a paying client you would apply a pressure for your ideas that may not be in line with their business ideas and decisions. I think they want to avoid that kind of dependency. Mind you can buy the module more than once to support at least the direction (ie. buy the Hornet 10 times to send a message that modern fighters are of most interest to you).

 

@Fri13DCS is a sandbox and a project that is not meant to be in released and final state in any point in the future. It will be continuously developed and improved. As for the smart AI - that is a nice future feature but we would still need manual waypoints or control for many engagements as IRL not all war decisions were logical or smart. It can also be done by adding some parameters to the AI like "we fear no one", "we stop for no one" or "we will defend or die trying" strategies but in a many missions (mainly historic) you'd still want to have control over what AI does.

  • Like 1

🖥️ Win10  i7-10700KF  32GB  RTX4070S   🥽 Quest 3   🕹️ T16000M  VPC CDT-VMAX  TFRP   ✈️ FC3  F-14A/B  F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR  PG  Syria

Posted

Well, I see your points. But even a simple PayPal donate button to support the general development of DCS World could be a solution in my opinion. 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, draconus said:

 

@Fri13DCS is a sandbox and a project that is not meant to be in released and final state in any point in the future. It will be continuously developed and improved.

 

What is more of a problem between ED and third party developers to understand the changes to come and versions that will remove something. 

Nice way is that when a something better is developed, it will be introduced first for moment aside of the old one. And then old is moved in given time frame, giving developers time to adapt to new way. 

This is example use in the Linux where periods are 3/6/12 months and then even 2-4 years own steps. Everyone gets the changes, they have time to port to new and once the old code has turned to be obsolete, it gets removed. If someone still has not done their work for major changes, it is their fault for not following what happens. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, draconus said:

As for the smart AI - that is a nice future feature but we would still need manual waypoints or control for many engagements as IRL not all war decisions were logical or smart. It can also be done by adding some parameters to the AI like "we fear no one", "we stop for no one" or "we will defend or die trying" strategies but in a many missions (mainly historic) you'd still want to have control over what AI does.

 

Usually such scenarios happens where losses are too high are when intelligence fails (and it always does...) and troops commander underestimates enemy or overestimates own troops. Doesn't see out of the box or doesn't react to very obvious threat. There are always cases where other side has been slaughtered, like defenders has been commanded to hold as reinforcements are just coming. And then enemy suddenly has heavy artillery in their arsenal or air support and majority of defenders are killed before they could do anything. 

 

The WW2 did teach many things, shaking so old ideas away. And since the WW2 things the proper european level modern full war scenarios has not happen. So tactics and all has been adjusted to different kind ones. DCS World can not provide so adaptable and skilled AI that in reality there is. But key thing is as well that we need to have AI that does not cheat, that is actually fair and does mistakes. 

Why IMHO the AI that is controlling each unit individually, should not know anything more than they should. So the AI doesn't know that how many enemies there is behind the ridge, if there is any even if the intelligence say so. It shouldn't know it is getting flanked if there is no one spotting the flanking element and warning the AI. But the AI should make mistakes like recognizing flanking possibility and preparing for it, or be skilled and clever that prepares for it already but does know how to react to it by not spreading forces too thin. 

 

Eventually I see DCS World Combined Arms as RTS game for human players. Not so much for "super intelligent AI". Like if the current AI is so stupid that it just moves as waypoints go and do what waypoint tells to, having only own capability to fire with some default settings. But outside of it, there is no intelligence. Like have a group moving over field and if they get engaged, they scatter for 600 seconds and sit there as ducks in open field being shot at. 

Where we can see many things are broken in the AI way of thinking, starting from the old way of groups + waypoints. AI shouldn't use anymore groups, they should be units. So copy the real military hierarchy to be used and AI has possibilities to start being more flexible. Make basic rules like how to send first scouts a head to check the positions, instead moving main forces straight to be killed. Basic logic like if the open field needs to be crossed (instead going around) then send scouts first and gather other units ready to support from own side. 

 

First writing basic logic to work as individual unit, then as pair, then as squad/platoon and eventually as larger units. It will get far in basic manner. It can't cover everything but it is a far better than what we have now. 

 

But developing such framework for AI is what would brake so many things. It doesn't mean that waypoints and current group thinking can't be maintained aside for year or two, but new framework needs to be made primary new way to do things. 

In a RTS games we can either have this waypoint+group thinking, but it is like a old Red Alert kind style where you select bunch of units and command to go somewhere. No matter how stupid it is, but support units goes first and spreadhead units can come last. 

The AI needs to understand that what is required to form different elements and make those available to player to command. So if player selects a recon unit and tells it to get one position, the AI needs to know what belongs to that recon unit and what routes it should move to get to commanded location. As player shouldn't command waypoints but give goals. Like mark a bridge as the crossing point, and set the area in place to be scouted and at what time it needs to be done.

 

The players needs to move away from the old current method as well, and move more to the real military ways of thinking.

The easy part is that none of this is hard to find out, as it is out there in the libraries for basic military lessons. Hard part is to actually implement it but that is the programmers work, and it is actually very easy as real military command structure and tactics/strategies are so well documented to lowest level that it is just thinking it aloud. And great thing in DCS World is that so much micromanagement parts can be dropped off. Like there is no need to have anything about individual soldier daily tasks to be modeled that things get easier. 

 

 

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...