Battlefield Productions - Third Party Content Provider, A vision for the future

[Worg]

People come to offer you ground units, infantry, vehicles, animated airport personnel ...
I think Battlefield Productions should get in direct contact with ED and chat and talk about what they could do.
We are requesting updates for some too old AI models.
But I fully understand that ED has a lot, a lot of work, and doesn't have enough staff to take care of it.
People come to see us saying, if you want, have the vehicles taken care of, ground staff .... Where is the problem?
It's up to ED to decide that, but I say yes.

Regarding paid assets, all work deserves a salary. I don't get up in the morning to earn nothing at the end of the month, for the developers it's the same ... It pleases you to buy, it doesn't please you don't buy. It's as simple as that.

But it would be necessary to return to the initial subjects. Battlefield Productions.
Have you already made units that you could show us in photos?
Can we find out more about your teams and their qualifications?

The DCS modding community is very talented, VSN aircraft, Military aircraft mod, French pack, Civil aircraft mod (I forget a lot) all of its people have worked hard to provide us with excellent quality aircraft or vehicles.

I also told myself that on the one hand, a new third party who would only take care of ground vehicles or buildings could free up staff at ED dedicated to their tasks to concentrate on others.

[Qiou87]

On the one hand, super excited to see more ground units, and especially the airport personnel thing is extremely sexy.

 

However, I also think about what it means to the community if we start to have too many asset packs that are paid and therefore not everyone has them. I strongly believe WWII would be more popular if, instead of what we have now, all you needed to purchase was one aircraft module and maybe one map. From a customer perspective, multiple different packs and modules needed are splitting the community.

 

However, I also respect greatly that work deserves a salary. This is something that I think should be discussed with ED, how you could monetize your work and get paid, without having a paid assets pack. For example I did propose some time ago that "low def" ground assets could be free, but a "high def" version would be a paid upgrade. It means every unit and its capabilities are in the base game for everyone in this case, but they look very basic.This way the units are there for everyone, there is no community splitting, but those who pay for the pack get much nicer models and maybe some other benefits. But in the end we can all play together, loading into a server or trying to play a SP campaign doesn't start with "You need to own this module and that module in order to play this".

This relates to the ground troops however. For the airport stuff, maybe a similar approach to a super carrier could be taken, where your addon comes on top for those who pay for it, and those who don't can still use the airport but it is just as empty and "bare" as it is now? Not sure how it would work with the game engine, but again, I want to avoid that we have multiplayer and campaigns that require 5 or 6 different modules: a map, this ground troops asset pack, that airport asset pack, etc. and in the end only 5 people are able to join. 

Edited January 6, 2021 by Qiou87

[WRAITH]

Hi Battlefield Productions, my 2cs so from what I understand it would be assisting the combined arms module there is decades of wishlist's and wants in this Thread - https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/85-dcs-combined-arms/

 

Please go through it if possible and add to your development ideas in hopes you get a contract with ED as 3rd Party Dev Team.

 

My desire as a single player is to be able to "Control Combined Forces against Bluefor vs Redfor Battlefield situational awareness in areas where either support or eliminating threats to achieve tasking orders as a milsim where I the player have immersion and depth of simulation to play out multiple realistic situations like joint military operations like RIMPAC or NATO exercises would be an amazing experience. Also in addition to future "Dynamic Campaign" and Theater/Map development  - https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/223750/view/2721816081725871826

 

With new elements and A.i 

 

I just see this as my future home sim its certainly going places now hoping for the best in continual development and 3rd party involvement is only adding to the possibilities of expansion.

 

I hope my post is somewhat helpful to you.

[Battlefield Productions]

Thanks once again for the feedback.

Our aim is to work closely with ED in the first instance to formulate a delivery plan that is acceptable to all concerned, that includes discussing how to address some of the points raised in the discussion here so far regarding how the Asset packs would work at a core level, as ED themselves have already released their own Asset pack we will of course been keen to talk to them on the best way forward for all.

Very conscious of some of the points raised here, most of my free time is dedicated to flying and building within the DCS environment, and has been for many many years, so whilst i am a games developer I am also very much a current heavily invested DCS customer who understands and shares some of the points raised here, these can only be tackled with meaningful discussions moving forward, and many of the ideas we present as suggestions to you for production are things I would like to see myself.

Sorry if I didn't reply to someone directly, you can be assured we have read every one of the comments in this topic however, and appreciate the feedback, good and bad.

@Wraith  Will check that out thanks, I have combined arms myself but have not invested much time with it personally as the content was a little thin on the gameplay side for my tastes when I looked last.

@Quiou87 "all you needed to purchase was one aircraft module and maybe one map." - These are exactly the kinds of talks we wish to have, to understand how best to make the ideas we have possible, whilst making sense at a community level.

We are open for more consultation with the community, and then we would like to approach ED with some concept renders and a development plan, we will NOT be providing the community any concept renders of our work until we have had meaningful discussions with ED, as we feel it will just be wasting everyone's time if ED do not want to talk to us in the first place, we are not here to build up people's hopes until we have the security of an agreement in place.

In the first instance we would like to work on the Airfield Pack if we can make that possible.

 

Edited January 6, 2021 by Battlefield Productions

[Weasel]

Hello Marcus

I really appreciate your ideas and efforts making DCS better and more realistic.

Even I am not interested in everything you mentioned, I appreciate every kind of improvements anyway.

Airport pack and having more living and realistic airports (together with improved and also more realistic airfield ATC which is EDs task) is one of my biggest dream and I really looking forward what is comming from your side in the near future

[Dudikoff]

I would definitely be interested in Cold War asset packs, but I think it would help if some of the relevant AI aircraft are included in these packs as well.

 

You could perhaps offer these organized by some time periods and maps. E.g. an Arab/Israeli asset pack intended for the Syrian map might be interesting (AI vehicles, perhaps SAMs, skins, livery for AI aircraft, new AI aircraft models, etc.).

Edited January 6, 2021 by Dudikoff

[NeilWillis]

I would definitely like to see you guys adding to our little world here.

[zerO_crash]

22 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

 

 I think I got distracted mid-thought and left my comment a tad vague.

 

To clarify, I was referring to lag induced by overpopulation. That's an unavoidable factor in every game, though the line of what constitutes ''over populated'' can vary depending on the game and how it distributes the workload. More people in and of itself isn't a bad thing, until you cross that line. The crappier/cheaper the server operating the whole thing, the quicker you arrive at that line, also if the game is not optimised for high pop. I was referring to servers I've seen get screwed up chasing pop count at the cost of quality service in gaming in general.

 

 Otherwise, yes, in principle your points are all valid influences on a server, just not what I referring to.

 

Gotcha, and I would agree with that. +1

[MobiSev]

On 1/5/2021 at 1:46 PM, zerO_crash said:

There is a difference between not having a flyable module and still being able to join a server, versus not having an asset pack and not being able to join a server. Also, no one ever said that the majority of DCS community is online, quite contrary, according to what ED have stated. Most of us who are in clans fly singleplayer a lot. However just because it´s a rather small percentage online, doesn´t mean that it doesn´t exist. If it´s 2ooo people online right now, then creating servers with specific packs (that as opposed to not having modules, will not let you join a server) will bring that number to 20. That´s the issue. And if multiplayer is not important, then I wonder why ED used so much time with improving net-code, made it possible for dedicated servers and all the other multiplayer implementations.

 

If that wasn´t enough, we are now moving into a time where new modules released finally feature multi-responsibility aircraft (F-14, L39, C-101, EB-339, Mi-24, AH-64D, F-4 and all the other upcoming multi-seat modules), thus making it optimal to feature multiple human pilots in one session. Flying in those with an AI is a cripple. This is definitely not something that should be neglected!

 

The Super Carrier is not a flyable module and was still tweaked to work (initially it was set to not let you join MP servers with it too).  The same can be done for asset packs, in fact, it would even be free advertising for them as people would see the units, but not be able to control them.  If they are good, then people will want to have the opportunity to control them.  This is what happened with me and the supercarrier tbh, i saw it in the server and really wanted to use it due to that...ended up buying it

[Devil 505]

I fully support and agree with everything Battlefield Productions has suggested bringing to DCS.  Being former military and current DOD contractor, I get really tired of people referring to ARMA as realistic or the go to sim for ground forces and accurate armor modules.  I will not get on the ARMA hate train but there is NOT a sim out there right now that remotely comes close to the capabilities of creating a full blown armor module/ground sim like DCS world could, and do it with the honor and accuracy it deserves.  I think this is an outstanding idea and I have been a massive proponent for it for many years.  The closest we have scene is Steel Beasts when it comes to a high fidelity armor module.   

 

The argument that the community would not enjoy an armor module could easily be debated.  Look at the Anubis C-130 mod, loads of people trashed flying a cargo plane and now 95% of the people flying it have pitched a tent down stairs and are asking for it to become a full blown third party mod with ED support.  They have 5 positions to rotate from and created jobs for each position.  Guys/Girls are having a blast working together flying it in all fashions.  I believe the same to be true with Armor modules.  If done correctly, tactics and team work become the key to it survivability on the battlefield, just like in real life.  Close air support from air units, team work within the module, proper planning on approach to target areas, or kick ass AI in single player like Jester with the F-14.  I think armor modules would be welcomed by many.  I would support them in a heart beat.  The amount to choose from and time periods would keep you guys in business for years.

 

Infantry and better ground units are a must.  We need the ground to feel just as alive as the asset in the air.  Super Carrier is another great example.  The feedback has been outstanding on the carrier deck crews.  Cant fly without them now.  Proper infantry tactics and animations is a must.  Ton of guys on here that can assist with that I am sure.  It would also be great to see the introduction of different branches on the ground.  Marines, Army, Air Force.  You could even go as far as SOCOM and creating SF/SEAL/MARSOC ect.... for special operations.  Given the fact we have Syria and eventually the Afghanistan map coming, these would create immersive missions for air units.  Inerst/Extract, close air support with the Apache/Kiowa, improved night ops, maritime operations ect...  Ground units really needs its own thread for suggestions.  The untapped possibilities here is almost endless and much needed.    

 

I think you guys are on the right track and I would love to throw some ideas around with you if interested.  DCS was created as digital combat simulator with ground and sea units in mind from its inception.  I think a lot of fly boys on here forget that.  There is a large following that would highly support your endeavors on all you have suggested.  Please keep pressing on with this and do not give up.  I have introduced DCS to more retired military pilots than I can count now I work with.  They all say it reminds them so much of the time they spent in service and have wound up buying the sim because it takes them back to their prime.  I believe the same to be true with your combat vets on the ground.  You have a ton of dudes ready to see a proper military ground sim and I firmly believe DCS is that sim.

[Worg]

Robert.Clark251.... +++1000000

[twistking]

10 hours ago, robert.clark251 said:

[...] Inerst/Extract, close air support with the Apache/Kiowa, improved night ops, maritime operations ect...  Ground units really needs its own thread for suggestions.  The untapped possibilities here is almost endless and much needed. [...]

Are you suggesting that infantry should be be player controlled or just better AI, better visuals etc.?

[Silver_Dragon]

28 minutes ago, twistking said:

Are you suggesting that infantry should be be player controlled or just better AI, better visuals etc.?

 

Infantry Manpads has player controler on DCSW from CA release, and usable as a FPS.

Edited January 7, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[Stratos]

I feel we really lack in the gound units department, AAA, SAMS, non only Warsaw pact material, but chinese, french, british and american.

[SparxOne]

I guess i'm also gonna add my part to this threat i find very interesting to say the least !

 

I'd like to warn you guys that this might be a little disorganized, sorry for that and please bear with me as i've got a few things to say

 

Let me start by saying that i'd be very happy to welcome and know that a dedicated team would spend time working on the whole ground warfare of DCS, whether it be the production or update of assets, the well needed AI, or anything that could simply make it better in all its forms.

 

Since the day i've bought Combined Arms, i've been able to get a feel for myself at how fun this module is, yet very basic, it allows for so many possibilities yet unseen or too greatly unnoticed by the bigger side of the community (At least that's my feel to it). I fell in love with how fun it gets to grab a vehicle and push the frontline while having the air boys above doing CAS. Or simply grabbing a AAA or SAM and waiting for that perfect opportunity to down a passing aircraft. I've always told people that CA has so many possibilities it could bring to DCS but unfortunately the majority of people don't bother about it or simply don't know how fun it can be !

Simply looking at how little usage CA has in any MP server goes to show how left aside the module is by the community, yet again quite sad considering the amazing things mission creators could come up with it !

 

It would be hard for me to tell you exactly what would make the ground warfare much more interesting as i have so many things in mind, but i guess a good summary would be to make it way more dynamic (Maybe that will happen with the coming Dynamic campaign ?), because as of right now, 99% of missions i've seen while playing MP has literally all ground units static waiting to be bombed, i feel the ground warfare would feel much more alive if for a start we'd see much more movement of those ground units, nothing like seeing a moving convoy, tank platoon, infantry squad or whatever and being like "I need to stop them from getting wherever they're going before they get there".

 

On the other hand, a lot has already been said in this thread, been reading it over a few days, can't quite remember each of those interesting points.

I guess i'd really enjoy controlling a ground vehicle and going about a certain mission with the assistance of other ground units going for a common objective with support from the air. But i don't see DCS becoming better at ground warfare over the air aspect we've got so far. DCS has to me always been centered around the air warfare and they've done an incredible job at it all this far, i'll always remain a flyboy after all (Yes my lovely 16 ). But of coarse this doesn't mean the ground aspect should be left to a very bare minimum.

 

So as to not get carried away into more disorganization of my post, i'll finish up with what's more or less preoccupying me if Battlefield Prod had to get involved with the ground side of DCS. 

I think this had been mentionned a few times already in various ways but let me repeat it, i'd hope NOT to get into a division of the community because of module ownage and unavailability to play together because of it.

I would NOT want DCS to become a showcase of an infinite e-shop module/payware thing. It could already be said that it is already, but the vast majority of what is sold are planes being modeled to high fidelity, massive maps, or campaigns containing multiple missions for a said aircraft. And appart from the maps at this point, there is literally none blocking you from joining a friend or a server even if you're the only one owning said plane. The price of these feels legitimate as they have been worked on deeply, especially with the planes and their insane systems complexity. I do stand with the many saying that all work deserves a pay, but i'm saying i wouldn't want to have a dozen different little modules to buy for each and every thing (For exemple : Each Nations ground units, a nations specific branch as in air land or sea, many different eras etc). I'd hope for it to stay as a whole, with as less different payments as possible to own something.

 

I'm gonna end it here, sorry again for the disorganization. 

[YSIAD_RIP]

Thanks for joining the party @Battlefield Productions!

 

All your suggestions from your introductory post are fun and valid. If there is one thing in your list that you are PASSIONATE about, as a developer and a DCS customer, I would hope you would include that in what could be your first wave.

 

I do like the idea of having what sounds like "High Fidelity" vehicles and weapons systems in the future.   

[ex81]

I think we need working light sources like LightTowers which light up Objects at night. It`s bad parking your jet under light tower and its still absolut black.

I would pay some money for this, or maybe some more.

Edited January 8, 2021 by ex81

[Devil 505]

6 hours ago, twistking said:

Are you suggesting that infantry should be be player controlled or just better AI, better visuals etc.?

I am absolutely suggesting player controlled infantry.  I think it is safe to say most vets I personally know have a very deep connection to the units they served with, the gear they used, and the operations they conducted.  There is not a sim out there that has successfully recreated a high fidelity sim for infantry, special operations units, or armor units.  The closest modern day shooter that has done a pretty damn good job is "Squad."  However flying helos is arcade at best, the maps are a decent size but not realistic for air units, and the armor units look great but have an arcade feeling as well.      

 

Call of duty, ARMA, Battlefield and other similar "games. not sims", are all run and gun kid shooters.  I know there will be disagreements with ARMA fans, but the closest they pulled it off was with ARMA 2 and the more realistic battlefield setting in the middle east.  The introduction of future air assets and fake guns killed the immersion for me in ARMA 3, I know there are mods.  I am not knocking these games by any means, but when you compare DCS to these titles, there is no comparison.  A huge player base, including the ones on this forum, all scream for the most realistic representation of an aircraft that ED or third parties can possibly produce.  Your ground pounders and armor boys are waiting for their day as well.  The DCS environment can and I believe will provide this in the future.  Of course its current state needs a lot of work, but the fact we have a group of dudes wanting to take on that challenge to me is inspiring and yet another dream come true for the digital battlefield they are creating.

 

I do not believe if first person combat was introduced it would become any of the titles listed above.  Like with air combat, strategy, tactics, coordination with air assets, and mission planning would be vital.  It would play right into the dynamic campaign being created by ED.  This would create loads of content for single and multiplayer.  I think with the introduction of the dynamic campaign we will start to see online players grow and this would only encourage more customers to migrate to DCS.

 

Being former military, a cop, and now DOD, I want to see high fidelity small arms done the right way.  I want a true scale, realistic infantry/SOCOM sim where weapons are high fidelity and represent their real world counterparts, along with all associated gear and uniforms for their prospective time periods.  If its an EOTECH and has issues with battery power, let make it happen.  If it is a early Afghanistan M4 with and Aimpoint Comp M2 and 40 mike mike, do it.  If it is an old school first Iraqi war carry handle M16 rock that shit.  The amount of real world content that could be brought to DCS for ground units is beyond a large scale.  The variants of uniforms, firearms, armored units, and support units used just from the 80's through current day would be crazy to recreate.  Not even mentioning Vietnam and older assets.  

 

I have said it over and over, this is an untapped gold mine that if done correctly, will bring combat vets and new guys alike running.  I am tired of playing games with MP5's referred to as MX7s or M4's called silly shit like scorpions.  Battlefield productions needs to start bringing true combat proven names to DCS such as Colt, SIG, FN, HK, Eotech, Aimpoint, Knight Armament just to name a few.  And for the love of god, name the suppressors correctly and model them correctly.  I hate three or four different suppressors in games where the length is the only difference.  Photogramatry of all small assets would be a must.  Look at what RazBam is doing with their harrier pilot. THIS is what we need on the ground.  I could go on and on with this topic, but DCS is waiting for high fidelity boots and tracks on the ground and it would be a hell of a good time coordinating with our fly boys and rotor jocks.  Keep pressing the topic Battlefield Productions, we are waiting and ready to support your endeavors.      

[Battlefield Productions]

The passion in this last post (And many others) echoes the dedication people give to their hobby which is DCS, a passion I can also share, as mentioned before I am long standing customer with good investment into the platform.

We are not in a position to promise a single thing at this moment apart from one thing, if we get the chance to build things for the platform it will be done with care and attention, and passion, We don't do anything with half effort, we come from a background of making top level AAA title games.

Currently our team is small in number, but can easily expand as needed, we have access to more than enough talent if we need to grow in size, as you can appreciate it is pointless growing a big team with no agreements in place first.

Once again, we have read all the replies and appreciate the comments, if we have not mentioned your post it is not because we haven't read it, it is because there is nothing substantial we can add to your comment at this time with no agreements in place.

In the first instance we would like to supply some renders to ED, to show the quality of our work, and a project design document - so if someone from ED would like to contact us we are ready to take that next step.

Thanks,

M.

[Devil 505]

I am sure Wags or BigNewy can point you in the right direction.  They are very open to new third party devs applying.  I even remember an interview with the Grim Reapers on YouTube with ED stating they are always looking for third party talent.  I think you guys will have a solid chance.  Good luck and I look forward to what you might bring to DCS.  Fired up gents!

[goestrip]

i'm all for supporting this endeavour

- We need more era focused units!   no point in fighting a SA15 with an F86  .   both from fighting and support vehicles.  Special vehicle like the SCUD last year gave very interesting scenario oportunities. I'd like to see more of that kind of things.

- Building with proper texture according to map (grass green bunker in desert map => no thank  )

 

I fly in a group, most don't have wwii asset pack cause we don't fly them, not the other way around. So if there was a good unit pack for a reasonable price (think CA/ wwII pack) it will be a no brainer. Everybody playing DCS is already throwing hundreds € in gear and module, stop pretending you won't buy another one .

 

Looking at the recent amazin work of the French_Pack, it gave us mission makers plenty of will and ideas to create more focused action: exactly what DCS lacks:  game content !

 

Go @Battlefield Productions ! 

 

[Devil 505]

I think bigger picture with the upcoming dynamic campaign, it would open up loads of content for pilots, infantry/SOCOM units, and armor units.  For example, if the campaign could generate missions based upon the level of enemy presence in a village, it could generate a mission for a SOCOM unit to capture a high level target or create a mission for infantry and armor units to take the village/town.  The success of this mission would weigh on the campaign outcome. 

 

You successfully capture the high level target on a covert night op, he provides intel that creates a mission for pilots to go destroy a weapons cash that may or may not have heavy resistance.  With that night op, you incorporate air assets for insertion/extraction and CAS if needed.  The infantry boys and armor retake the village/town, the battlefield presses forward and tactical advantage is made holding that ground for future operations, maybe opening up other missions in that region.  If lost, enemy pushes closer to a FOB or air base putting them within range of mortar strikes or other attacks. 

 

Another example would be SAR units.  This would be a GREAT asset brought to the game.  Any AI or Player controlled aircraft shot down that successfully ejected could generate a downed pilot recovery mission in the area they ejected.  This in turn would require units like USAF Pararescue, SEAL, or SF units to go in and bring the pilot back.

 

Recon operation would be another.  Sending in JTAC units to call in air strikes for the fighters would be outstanding.  I honestly think if any ground unit is modeled first, this should be it.  There is direct comms between players on the ground and in the air requiring both to work together.  From a sales point of view, there could be JTAC/TACP module packs.  Each branch has their own derivative of this operator with different kit requirements, uniforms ect....

 

Overall,  I believe the possibilities for this content are close to endless.  I might give some examples later of armor modules.  I already have a close friend (older than me) that is former Army/armor guy and always said he would love to assist with an armor module for DCS.  He was beyond excited when he saw the Apache coming.   

[3WA]

It's called dcs "WORLD".  The planes are great.  But now, we need FPS and Vehicle simulation as well.

 

There's probably not going to be another "Large World FPS IV" type sim coming out.

 

So, DCS, why not take up the reigns?  Now's your chance.  You could sell SO MANY more copies.  You could be the next EVOLUTION in FPS / Large World.

 

I for one welcome new paid modules, whatever they are.

Edited January 8, 2021 by 3WA

[SparxOne]

@robert.clark251 I can totally understand your passion and excitement for what you are putting forward and wishing to see happen ingame but i feel you are really looking too far at it.

 

Let me explain. I feel i can connect to your feelings from what you are describing with the whole infantry thing combined with the armor and air part. This sounds excellent on paper/ in theory, i would also love to see in my life a game that can correctly combine the 3 aspects together on a scale and especially simulating it as good as DCS makes it for the aircrafts for now ! I've been a long time gamer and played all sorts of games, ranging from FPS ones, RTS, Simulators, you name it. While I always had that special part in my heart for the air simulations, i've always also enjoyed good FPS' trying to include the 3/4 branches into one game and that is (Air, Sea, Land, Boots), yet always focusing on one or 2 of these, it was fun and enjoyable to have them mixed all together somehow. 

 

The unfortunate reality is that i believe the technical side of creating such a dream would be very hard to put in place at least for now with current tech, i could very much be wrong as i'm no professional in game developpment but from the little knowledge i have of it, many technical sides need to be taken into account before being able to combine Air, Sea, Land and infantry together, especially on a scale and detail/simulation DCS does it for now. This is probably why none have done it to this day, at least to the point of recreating something authentic and as close to reality as possible.

Computers/Servers probably wouldn't be able to handle such a highly detailed environment combining Air, Sea, Land and Boots on maps the size DCS brings to us. From all those games i've played to this day, there will always be a side of it sacrificed to allow one to be more indepth or having more focus to it. The best examples coming to mind are Arma, War Thunder, Battlefield series. These games have almost the full set combined yet one or more of those branches has been sacrificed because of necessity to allow the focused ones to be viable in terms of performance and playability i believe. Arma has always had their focus turned on the boots on the ground, yet having armor and air in the game, these 2 were sacrificed especially the air one feeling really bad (At least for the airplanes, not so much the helicopters). Plus not mentionning the size of the maps really not adapted for proper air warfare.

War thunder on the other hand had their focus on the air part at least at their beginning, while not raising the bar to any level i would consider a simulator, they ended up bringing Armor and Sea warfare to it, but never infantry. Probably once again because of technical impracticality.

Battlefield are probably the only ones who brought the 3 branches together in a somehow equal playing field, that said the infantry, armor and air. Of coarse the 3 are very much arcade but the 3 are balanced well enough to fight all together, that would be my point.

 

The points to remeber here are :

-Arma did a very decent job for the infantry part, i've read you and understand your point of view on it but Arma still to this day has managed something no others did, and i'm looking at many different points when saying that, don't want to name them all because too long. The Armor (Vehicles) is fun and pretty decent for its level of arcadyness i would say. The air is simply bad if you take the planes, but like said somewhere above the helicopters can be very fun and semi realistic if you fly with advanced physics for them.

-War Thunder has Air, Land and sea but really has no feel of simulation to it appart from the "fake" gamemode they consider to be simulator (In the following lines, i'll be talking about War Thunder as if you were playing with the "simulator" gamemode). The tank gameplay while still closer to an arcade feel can be debated to still be fun and engaging somehow, while the air part just feels like your plane suddenly has weight and something related to lift and engine power. Yet infantry is none existant, probably because it would be too hard to manage any server running 40 player controlled tanks, 20 player controlled planes and let's say 80 player controlled infantrymen all at the same time

-Lastly, Battlefield. While totally arcade in each category, i just wanted to highlight the fact that they've acheived the combination of all 3 aspects because of simplicity and balance of each units. Each map is relatively small with limits you cannot surpass without dying, the amount of vehicles is a fixed number same as the slots for infantry, all this allowing for that mix to work out seemlessly.

 

Either way, my idea here is simply that i don't believe even in the next 5-8 years DCS has the possibility to bring infantry to a standard you would call a simulation or at least what you seem to be wanting in terms of details "I want a true scale, realistic infantry/SOCOM sim where weapons are high fidelity and represent their real world counterparts, along with all associated gear and uniforms for their prospective time periods.".

DCS servers/and most PCs already struggle to handle 40-50 players at once so imagine the amount of players it would need to handle if you want to simultaneously mix the planes, helicopters, tanks and the infantry to an amount that would allow any decent combined operations...

 

Just to be clear, I wouldn't mind seeing controllable infanty in DCS, even to a basic standard, but the amount of work that would be needed to make it even remotely immersive as the planes is once again i believe far from achievable. One thing that strikes me first is simply the terrain itself, as an infantry you spend 99% of your time on the ground slower than anyone else in a vehicle, yet relying on the terrain for a lot of the work you'll be doing "Attacking something, ambushing, defending, hiding, etc", the terrain in DCS is missing a massive amount of detail to make that even remotely viable to carry any proper work with infantry. The mesh of the terrain is very basic, trees and bushes are very basic again, natural obstacles like rocks or anything that would either allow you to take cover, hide or block you from passing once again are totally absent in DCS, imagine bringing the maps in DCS with their insane sizes to a level of detail adapted for infantry (Arma style) ? All this works well from the air because those details are mostly unnoticed while flying at 450knt at 5000feet, and simply because it would take an unnecessary amount of ressource from the computers for very little pleasure. 

 

I'm sure you understand all of this and hopefully you did think of it too, but i just doubt Battlefiled Prod could create such a universe within the airplane universe we already have, especially without a great deal of involvement from ED themselves (And I'm pretty certain ED has no interest in dedicating the amount of ressources needed to allow this).

 

We are all allowed to dream and see big, but at the same time i like to stay realistic.

Let's allow them to work on the ground part of DCS as a whole for a start, allowing them to raise the bar to a higher level from what we have right now, anything they'd do would already be a massive upgrade considering how far back the ground warfare is in DCS.

 

Cheers @robert.clark251, i like your view and ideas to this but to me it's a bit of a pipe dream unfortunately.

Edited January 8, 2021 by SparxOne

[3WA]

On 1/5/2021 at 6:02 AM, Battlefield Productions said:

More Detailed Ground Vehicles "The Pipe Dream":

Not sure what the take up of Combined Arms has been, but having played it, it seems like it was a great idea that was probably not fully realised for various production reasons, the frame work is there, it just needs expanding as a concept and making into something which holds enough interest to generate its own player base.

Re: the co-existence of these vehicles vs the "Airforce" - yes valid points, but I think if the ground forces became good enough it could start to generate its own player base with people running servers possibly exclusively for land war "one day", with the options of AI controlled Air Assets.

I am not sure we could provide the balance between air power and ground power and solve all those issues raised above - because that balance of "fairness" doesn't exist in the real world either, if your out cruising around in the battlefield in real life and an A10C turns up, you better hope you are on the same side, or he didn't spot you

So the vision for the ground vehicles would be to include more detailed and more accurate physics, to firstly make them more interesting to drive, some interior modelling and options to change positions into those more detailed positions, more detailed damage system which is configured more consistently, switches and controls to control many more aspects of the vehicle - again to make it feel more interactive and more enjoyable to spend time in etc, as well as adding the obvious functionality improvements for certain vehicle types.

 Multicrew would be nice but completely unknown to us atm as we have not seen any of the tools and structure to make this function.

 

I like your thinking!  This is EXACTLY what I've been wanting for years!  So far, it's just DCS: SKY.  I want to see DCS: "WORLD".  Combined Arms was a start that was never taken back up again.  It must go MUCH farther, until we finally have fully simulated Vehicle mods.  Simulating Infantry should be easy enough, as it has already been done to death for decades now.  And screw balance.  "Balance" has no meaning in the Real World.  Most players confuse that word with "Tactics" and "Strategy".  I've played FPS / Large World sims that were complete slaughter fests.  That's just WAR.