Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Well, don't let the door hit you on the way out 😅

Exactly.  See?  This is the type of thinking that will eventually end DCS.  I don't know if you guys are total Boomers, or what, but you don't seem to see the future of simulation.  You don't want to move ahead to what can be.  You're locked in your old school ways and want ZERO change.  It's been that way for YEARS on this board.

 

Meanwhile, the rest of the World moves on and forward.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Please treat everyone with respect when posting. 

 

thank you all

  • Like 5

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2021 at 1:55 AM, Battlefield Productions said:

Hi Everyone,

My name is Marcus from Battlefield Productions.

I would like to share some ideas with the community for content we would like to bring to the DCS platform, content which we hope we can bring in an official capacity.

Before we take the next step of talking with Eagle Dynamics we would first like to conduct a small assessment to be assured our our ideas are compatible with this community, and that those visions meet the community wishes & expectations.

In the first instance Battlefield Productions are interested in producing the following content, the ideas below are visions only, and the ideas have come around from much reading here on these forums, these ideas are adaptable to some degree depending on how the community receive this, ultimately we only want to make content people actually want !
 

  • Red and Blue Forces Ground Forces Set "Cold War"
  • Red and Blue Forces Ground Forces Set "Post Cold War"
  • Airfield Assets Pack - Including Animated and Moving Ground Handlers etc - think along the lines of MS2020 or better - we need to firstly understand how flexible this engine is to achieve all that we would like tho, the goal  'is to bring a living and breathing ground environment on the Airfields


Ground Forces Sets would include vehicles, infantry, AAA, SAM's, everything on the ground in the battlefield, plus major revamp of Infantry & animation as well as increasing the quality of the models to at least quality of the latest DCS content (keep in mind we need to consider Framerate - so we accept ED's latest ground assets as a benchmark for poly count etc), we also be keen to expand the database for some civilian vehicle assets as well.

These are some of the things we would like to bring to the DCS environment at first, but in the longer future we would like to entertain the idea of doing some focus simulated ""Ground Vehicles", think along the lines of Combined Arms but with more depth and more realism, so for example a fully featured with multiple positions Tank with a full 3d internal model etc, and clickable interactive features & switches etc, and most importantly a more in depth and more realistic damage model, these would be proper "modules" in much the same way you currently purchase the other modules here within the DCS eco system.

The is NO pricing thoughts at this moment - this is something we would like to discuss with ED, but I can say this, here at Battlefield Productions we would rather sell our products to "everyone" at a good price than charge a premium to a "select few".

We look forward to community feedback at this point, and hopefully if the response is positive we can enter meaningful discussions with Eagle Dynamics.

 

Fantastic to hear! Hopefully you'll include static & mobile coastal missile battery defenses like the 4K51 'Rubezh', the 4K40/SPU-35B 'Redut', and the 4K44 'Utyos' as seen below👇

http://www.ausairpower.net/V-MF/Styx-PKRK-Rubezh-MAZ543M-TELAR-6S.jpg

https://weaponsystems.net/system/139-4K51+Rubezh

http://www.ausairpower.net/V-MF/SPU-35B-Redut-Sepal-TEL-1S.jpg

http://www.ausairpower.net/V-MF/SPU-35B-Redut-Sepal-TEL-2S.jpg

http://www.ausairpower.net/V-MF/Utyos-Sepal-Launch-1S.jpg

http://www.ausairpower.net/V-MF/Utyos-Sepal-Launch-2S.jpg

 

Also, I would love to see the addition of more Cold War era vehicles like the T-64BV, Chieftain, TOS-1 'Buratino', T-62. More support/supply vehicles is definitely need as well.

https://ray_forest_green.artstation.com/projects/ZboNZ

https://twitter.com/MickGrahamArt/status/750364520233758720/photo/1

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/tos1.htm

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Kocrachon said:

...  Multiplayer people tend to have longer engagement, and spend more money on a per user basis.

 

Wonder where you got the facts to sustain that assertion ... I have every Module and yet do no MP.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome! I can't say I would personally pay for any ground units, as I don't play combined arms and don't care that much about ground unit details and specifics aside from how they impact me in the air, and whether I can kill them 🙂

 

As for airfield assets, in particular animated ground crew, I'd love to see it. I know ED is planning on revamping airfield ATC to the level of Supercarrier, but I'm not sure if they plan on animated ground crew themselves. Either way it's something I would definitely pay for.

Virpil WarBRD | Thrustmaster Hornet Grip | Foxx Mount | Thrustmaster TWCS Throttle | Logitech G Throttle Quadrant | VKB T-Rudder IV | TrackIR 5

 

 

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB | 32GB DDR4 3200 | SSD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for it, but I do have trouble seeing how you would have meaningful ground combat. Tanks and naval might be doable but infantry? I guess you could, but it would not be anywhere near the fidelity of Squad/ARMA without it becoming an interactive slideshow presentation. I'm for reserved judgement until the first few modules are out and working. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I don't know.  I have 7 year old computer with a GTX-770, and if I stick everything to Low on Graphics, I can hit over 70 fps at times.  Average about 65 fps.

I think the main thing is getting the engine up to modern standards.  Using Vulcan for the new Graphics should help a lot.

My vision is first MUCH BETTER AI on the Ground, and new units ( I get so tired of shooting at what appears to be no more than wooden cut out targets that just sit there ).

Then Ground Modules ( Armor, SAM, etc. ), and lastly FPS.  Hopefully, by the time FPS is ready to be started on, we will all have MUCH more powerful computers that can support such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 3WA said:

I have 7 year old computer with a GTX-770, and if I stick everything to Low on Graphics, I can hit over 70 fps at times.  Average about 65 fps.

You clearly have not yet tried any complex mission which can easily put any high-end PC on its knees. AI calculations are mostly CPU dependant and while Vulkan can improve things the multi-core support is more needed here.

Try convoy or any moving target next time and targets with proper AA defences.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, draconus said:

You clearly have not yet tried any complex mission which can easily put any high-end PC on its knees. AI calculations are mostly CPU dependant and while Vulkan can improve things the multi-core support is more needed here.

Try convoy or any moving target next time and targets with proper AA defences.

 

 

Oh yeah... A DCS Liberation mission in Syria when dozens of missiles are suddenly launched - that doesn't put my PC on its knees, it knocks it on its back and straps it down to the floor.

 

 

17 hours ago, 3WA said:

My vision is first MUCH BETTER AI on the Ground, and new units ( I get so tired of shooting at what appears to be no more than wooden cut out targets that just sit there ).

Then Ground Modules ( Armor, SAM, etc. ), and lastly FPS.  Hopefully, by the time FPS is ready to be started on, we will all have MUCH more powerful computers that can support such.

 

I completely agree on the ground AI/cardboard cutouts thing. Soldiers who just stand there when an A-10C is bearing down on them is a bit immersion-breaking.

 

But FPS? Completely unfeasible on a technical level. Ground fidelity could never be high enough while maintaining performance. I remember when MSFS was being shown off and people were going nuts about how good the ground looked from 30,000ft and how they'd be walking and driving about on the ground. And then it was released, and... boom - technical limitations hit home.. "Why is that bridge merging into that skyscraper!?" I mean, Arma is arguably the most realistic commercial FPS game out there and it can be seriously taxing on an average PC. And it has only a fraction of the number of calculations DCS has to do.

  • Like 2

- i7-7700k

- 32GB DDR4 2400Mhz

- GTX 1080 8GB

- Installed on SSD

- TM Warthog

 

DCS Modules - A-10C; M-2000C; AV8B; F/A-18C; Ka-50; FC-3; UH-1H; F-5E; Mi-8; F-14; Persian Gulf; NTTR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am also very sceptical on the assets pack concept. The MP community will fracture further and the entry barrier for new people who might be interested in DCS might get even higher.
Oh, yes DCS is free, but you wanna participate in some fun MP missions? Well you first need to buy asset packs X Y Z, plus supercarrier plus whatever is next, land based ATC likely.
What do I know.

Yea I get it, some people dont mind throwing ever more money at their hobby and thats fine. But I see the serious risk of DCS becoming ever - more niche/exclusive to ultra hardcore simmers and being unable to attract or at least keep new players.

Another question I have is, if this hits the market, what incentive is there for ED to fix / improve on CA , which already seems abandoned.


Regards,

Snappy


Edited by Snappy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, modern (2000s) assets should be a part of the core. We can have "80s asset pack", "Vietnam asset pack" and so on, for era-specific stuff. A visual-only upgrade pack for the core would be acceptable, too. Anything else would split the community too much, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Snappy

I think CA pretty much is abandoned.  I don't see ED doing anything with it.  Why we are talking to these people.  As for costs, it's the dam HOTAS that really kills you in cost.

2. Not worried about MP.  Few people play it.  Almost everyone plays offline.  MP can be worked out between the few MP people.

 

@Dragon1-1

Agree with Dragon1-1 about modern 2000 assets pack.  What I really want to see.  Again, not worried about 10% MP community.  Sorry.  You guys can work it out between yourselves.


Edited by 3WA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how some people consider they have to be served for free... it's like written on clouds... or if is not in their area of interest then it has not to be here... 

 

From my point of view, anything on ground which can bring some life to DCS without killing FPS, is more than welcome. I'd rather pay for such content than buying who knows what other game that may keep me busy for several hours. DCS can be endless replayed and there will still be things to learn.

 

@Battlefield Productionsplease proceed with your plans... release  as "agile" and see how real things will work. You can assess later if is worthy or not...      

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Romanian Community for DCS World

HW Specs: AMD 7900X, 64GB RAM, RTX 4090, HOTAS Virpil, MFG, CLS-E, custom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Abburo said:

It's funny how some people consider they have to be served for free... it's like written on clouds... or if is not in their area of interest then it has not to be here... 

 

From my point of view, anything on ground which can bring some life to DCS without killing FPS, is more than welcome. I'd rather pay for such content than buying who knows what other game that may keep me busy for several hours. DCS can be endless replayed and there will still be things to learn.

 

@Battlefield Productionsplease proceed with your plans... release  as "agile" and see how real things will work. You can assess later if is worthy or not...      

 

I could not agree more Abburo! You do not walk into a store because you have purchased something from them in the past and say, I expect the rest for free.  The time, research, and authorization work required from these aircraft manufactures, future armored manufacturers, and hell even small arms companies like SIG, HK, Colt ect.... cost A LOT of time and money. 

 

Nobody ever questions why console or even PC first person shooters have weapon models that look like MP-5's, M-4's, SR-25's ect.... but are given silly ass names, paint jobs, or retarded accessories that are not authentic.  The reason is simple, they will not brand a firearm in game because of the work it takes dealing with manufacturers.  DCS/ED strive to hit that mark.  If it is a Lockheed Martin F-16, then they go to LM to get rights to use the name and reproduce an accurate representation of their product.  I expect the same level of authenticity out of any ground unit or small arms and would gladly pay to see it.

 

ED's foundation is built upon authenticity and painstaking detail for its customers and the customer has proven we are willing to pay for that level of detail in a product.  It would be no different for ground or naval assets.  It is simple, you buy what you like and if you do not like it, do not buy it.  The game works in multiplayer/single player with or without it, so why complain.  Those of you complaining about performance hits with new maps and assets, well are you driving your new car with a 15 year old engine in it.  The way she goes, its time for an upgrade.  If you expect the technology to get better, the technology expects you to pay for it.  I think ED has done a fantastic job drawing out the amount of time you can get out of one PC before needing an upgrade.  I have been a customers since day 1 of Flanker, Lock On, and Black Shark.  I think I have purchased 3 PC's from the time I started playing with them to stay up to speed.  This one (4th) I just bought will last at least another 4 years or so.  In that time I believe it is the equivalent of going through 3 or 4 new game systems.  So they are really on par for what they are asking performance wise.  And before some one says something stupid like a computer costs more, yes I know.  But if you add the cost of games up now days plus the systems and accessories, I do not need to go further by saying you would spend more over a 3 or 4 year period than buying a PC and a few modules from DCS during the same time frame.     

 

And for god sakes, before you people complain and say something is not being worked or ignored, keep up with the weekly and quarterly emails/posts on the forum that ED puts out.  95% of the assumptions on here have been addressed and are currently being worked on or are on the radar, not abandoned.  If that bruises your backside, thats the way she goes.  Keep up the good work ED.  The vast majority of us are fired up about 2021's road map and what you and the third party boys are doing for us.

 

...............................................................................................still waiting for HB to say something about the Intruder...................................................................................................     

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would, however, like a clear CA roadmap. It seems WWII is getting far more attention. It might be that it's just because they simply got people who are interested. That's why I would say to anybody who wants to invest resources into CA: Go for it! Somebody has to take the first step. For now the fruits are hanging pretty low.

 

As I mentioned the WWII section. I would be interested in WWI!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@3WA

I don‘t buy that 90% of customers are SP, very few play MP claim that ED likes to put out as its really not clear how they arrive at that data and how it’s defined.If I play 2/3 SP and 1/3 MP in which camp do I end up according to them?

Also, if really 90% of their customers  are playing SP ,its really ridiculous that they haven’t fixed the AI and their FM years ago.

Its so broken that it really takes the fun out of SP air to air.

ok if you re content with zapping them BVR with Aim 120s is likely doesnt make a difference.Lets not talk of the antics your supposedly friendly wingmen pull off.

 

@Aburro

 

You misunderstood me. I don‘t expect to get served for free. Personally , I have don’t have much interest in ground units anyway so I dont care if they are modelled in detail or not, or whether specific units are available in game or not.

 

However the future IADS module project showed that you can still find a way to sell the module while not excluding people who don’t own it from participating in missions that feature it.

In my opinion that the is a good way to forward. Its not my problem or my business model, but I don‘t think DCS will thrive in the long run if it becomes solely focused on ultra hardcore simmers that buy multiple asset packs and addons just to participate in MP missions or to make use of certain SP campaigns.

 

 

And btw about that „getting served for free“: ED already got money from people who bought CA and still has not gotten that module done well it seems. 

 

Or just sell DCS 3.0 for price X and include all that stuff in core.

 

 

regards,

 

Snappy

 

 

 


Edited by Snappy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Snappy said:

I don‘t buy that 90% of customers are SP, very few play MP claim that ED likes to put out as its really not clear how they arrive at that data and how it’s defined.If I play 2/3 SP and 1/3 MP in which camp do I end up according to them?

 

Same, I really don't buy that stat either.

 

Also, an easy way to not fracture the community with a new asset back is to go the supercarrier route and just simply not let people control the new assets.  That way they can still join servers and see how cool the new units are, thus encouraging them to buy the pack to gain control access.  This seems like a no brainer to me.


Edited by MobiSev
  • Like 3

Modules owned:

 

FC3, M-2000C, Mig-21bis, F-5E, AJS-37 Viggen, F/A-18C, KA-50, Mi-8, F-14A&B, JF-17

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Battlefield ProductionsJust a note with pricing and where things are going why not better sort out  a 3rd party developer contract deal with ED and simply add to Combined Arms as a development group instead of selling extra asset packs.

 

Combined Arms is lacking so much that it leaves Single Players wanting.

 

Now consider the development of ED's Dynamic Campaign variant looking from past milsim's it was a hit amongst simmers and then the development of maps towards building a global map its years of work and possibilities to grow in across various eras.

 

E.g.

 

  • Balkans War
  • Vietnam ...... so on

 

Also for those that think Single Player is a minority its false belief yeah multiplayer is where things are at for Squadrons but the sim just doesn't stop there in fact it can grow further from there into areas of more interaction and learning where you get more use from the actual overall sim. These are old discussions but with 3rd party help supporting a bigger vision you can use many areas of single player to improve on.

 

Although when we talk in terms of A.i and levels of complexity like....

 

Example....

  1. Recruit
  2. Cadet
  3. Rookie
  4. Veteran
  5. Ace
  6. Top Gun
  7. Major
  8. Kernel

...whatever....... etc ..... LoL

 

You can add so much realism and immersion with menu or voice comm's functions and player control A-A and A-G AWACS, ATC, JTAC, Mobile Command Centers. inland country airfields etc.

 

Where you are in a WAR and you are tasked orders and pulled in and out to support or to attack areas of threat or interest its just the same as multi-player in the sense of how you approach the sim/game and develop better insight into milsims as you build your pilot profile, also training range missions with various training airfields and tactics explored in missions scripts dynamic campaign so on.

 

The idea and use of Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) or mission in the same package and the combined use of infantry ground forces and improved interaction its just a great need, its where in past many wants were put forward but due to development status put on hold now there is an opportunity to improve and take it next level.

 

 

 

 


Edited by WRAITH

 

DCS FORUM SIG.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to drop and and mention the reason no further comment has been made is simply because we are not here to start making promises and building hype for something we can't deliver yet. That needs final agreements and contracts etc signed.

Everything we have said so far is our intent, and wishes and vision.

We hope we have made it clear from the start our vision is community centric.

We are now in the process of sorting out a sample and a design document - we will deliver that and then have a contract meeting, from that point on we would feel like we can engage in a more meaningful way with the community in terms of details and firm plans, we will not engage in talk discussing features and content and other fanciful ideas until we have the foundations in place - that is not productive to anyone.

Re: Community "fracturing" - there has already been some super good suggestions mentioned, these have been taken on board, how that will shake out in the end IDK yet, some of that equation we still need to discuss with ED.

Thanks again for the comments and suggestions, there is so much we can do if we can get all this sorted out, keeping those dreams realistic is what will count.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the "fracturing" goes, it is also important for people who buy assets that they are smoothly blended into any DCS configuration. For example, I bought DCS supercarrier, but all the DCS Hornet training missions use the basic carrier. In cases like this where missions or servers do not include the improved assets, then I am missing out on the experience I paid for. Now it takes the mission developers more effort to make all players happy.

 

From my point of view, the best options would either be to include free low detail models that are replaced by high detail models for those who own the assets, or to have a list of DCS core substitutes which automatically replace payware assets any time the user does not own them (like replacing a T-62 with a T-55). Either way, mission designers would not need to be shy about which units they include in their missions, since they would know that the missions will work for anyone regardless of asset pack configuration.

 

I am interested in the products you are discussing, but if I buy them, then I would like both mission designers and multiplayer servers to feel safe including them, so that I can enjoy the assets I pay for.


Edited by VincentLaw
  • Thanks 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have been away from DCS for a little while, but I would fully support this (vehicles/infantry/assets). TBH, I bought combined arms/WWII assets pack with the hopes that it would be something a little more. I would love to see CA/WWII assets develop, and the suggestion here would be very welcome.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of points I'd like to make.  

 

More is better and CA has been sorely neglected over recent years, so I am all in favour of a 3rd party taking ownership of this aspect of DCS, fleshing out the unit inventory and improving the AI.

 

Regarding survivability.  I think those who say you wouldn't last 5 minutes in a ground unit are being a little disingenuous, and basing this assumption on the current state of play with CA and ground unit AI.  Firstly, thermal imaging at the moment is too perfect.  Vehicles just glow uniformly against their background.  I know ED have already proposed a rework of IR signatures which would address this.  Secondly, ground units don't just camp out in straight lines in the middle of flat fields.  So many missions have them out in the open within a mile of a waypoint which (for a cold war scenario) is incredibly unrealistic.  A 1980s ground war would not feature medium altitude CAS wheels, or GPS navigation, or TGPs.  It would be in the weeds with a paper map and the Mk1 eyeball.

 

Spot the difference...

 

DCS tanks:

CA-7.jpg

 

Real tanks:

main-qimg-180e05b0f56672a6b13124b1d5e2b6

 

image.jpg

 

These guys in a treeline are not going to be easy to see, especially at low level and 480 kts.  Take away the F10 god view and permissive high altitude TGP friendly environment and the tanks survivability increases dramatically.  The problem is as much a ground detail fidelity issue.  Improve that and so do the chances of survival.

 

Something like Mudrunner, which I appreciate uses much smaller maps would be IMHO the 'ideal' implementation of CA for DCS in terms of ground detail fidelity and wheel/mud physics.

 

mudrunner-btr3.jpg

 

244807-SpinTires-2017-05-27-20-29-31-966

 

 

 

It is also conceivable that a ground unit commander could have 1st person control of a platoon of multiple vehicles.  This multiplies the survivability and playability.  Lose a couple of your tanks to a passing 'Hog/Su-25 and you still have a couple left to fight with.

 

It would also be nice to see a rework of the damage models.  Even just a simple upgrade from mobility kills, sensor damage, crew effectiveness, to outright destruction.  A nearby MK82 certainly won't kill an MBT but could quite conceivably crack lenses, remove radio antennae or kill an unbuttoned commander, all of which would have an effect on said MBT's combat effectiveness.

 

I think the ground warfare side of DCS if thoughtfully reworked could open up the game to a whole new subset of players, who don't necessarily want to invest the time on the aircraft modules.  The MP servers and SP missions may feel very different to our current airpower-centric bias, but they would add a richness to the DCS 'World' which is currently lacking.

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1

Laptop Pilot. Alienware X17, i9 11980HK 5.0GHz, 16GB RTX 3080, 64GB DDR4 3200MHz, NVMe SSD. 2x TM Warthog, Hornet grip, Virpil CM2 & TPR pedals, FSSB-R3, Cougar throttle, Viper pit WIP (XBox360 when traveling). Rift S.

NTTR, SoH, Syria, Sinai, Channel, South Atlantic, CA, Supercarrier, FC3, A-10CII, F-5, F-14, F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, F-86, Harrier, M2000, F1, Viggen, MiG-21, Yak-52, L-39, MB-339, CE2, Gazelle, Ka-50, Mi-8, Mi-24, Huey, Apache, Spitfire, Mossie.  Wishlist: Tornado, Jaguar, Buccaneer, F-117 and F-111.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lace said:

I think the ground warfare side of DCS if thoughtfully reworked could open up the game to a whole new subset of players, who don't necessarily want to invest the time on the aircraft modules. 

That is actually the important point. Asking flight sim enthusiast how they would like better simulated vehicles simply doesn't give the right results. If played in MP someone has to fly the planes and someone has to drive the ground vehicles. Those don't need to be the same gamers. They latter might right now not be interested in DCS and not playing it. That's why it might seem, that there's not much interest.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2021 at 5:55 PM, Battlefield Productions said:

...think along the lines of Combined Arms but with more depth and more realism, so for example a fully featured with multiple positions Tank with a full 3d internal model etc, and clickable interactive features & switches etc, and most importantly a more in depth and more realistic damage model, these would be proper "modules" in much the same way you currently purchase the other modules here within the DCS eco system.


 

 

7 hours ago, Lace said:

...I think the ground warfare side of DCS if thoughtfully reworked could open up the game to a whole new subset of players, who don't necessarily want to invest the time on the aircraft modules.  The MP servers and SP missions may feel very different to our current airpower-centric bias, but they would add a richness to the DCS 'World' which is currently lacking.

 

5 hours ago, sergkar said:

That is actually the important point. Asking flight sim enthusiast how they would like better simulated vehicles simply doesn't give the right results. If played in MP someone has to fly the planes and someone has to drive the ground vehicles. Those don't need to be the same gamers. They latter might right now not be interested in DCS and not playing it. That's why it might seem, that there's not much interest.

 

I highlighted the text from the OP's original post that is the most meaningful to me, and I think the combined arms approach for a Digital Combat Simulator makes the most sense.

 

Regarding infantry, I would just like to add while some here have suggested an Arma3/PostScriptum type approach, and I would not oppose that, there could be other possible avenues if that would be too big of a jump initially. Since most of DCS is focused on being plane/vehicle oriented, it would be useful and just as enjoyable if an AI infantry asset could at least realistically interact in game play.

 

Not to compare the type of game with DCS at all, but one example of decent AI behavior IMO would be something like Men of War Assault Squad2. If we had AI infantry that could defend/attack players in planes/tanks dynamically and with purpose, that IMO would add significantly to the immersive experience of DCS.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. I would buy this in a heart beat and I know alot of the community would be behind it. Period and country specific units would be fantastic. Good luck in your talk with ED. Wags, if your reading, we all want this 😃

  • Like 7

Modules- F15, F18, Spitfire, Mirage F1, Persian Gulf, Normandy 2.0, Syria, WW2 assets.

"Try to have the same number of landings as you have takeoffs"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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