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

[sergkar]

Yes, I read about that Abrams project in the CA forum. It's said that there were plans for a full fidelity Abrams model, but the project failed. Seems like that is the only MBT with a slightly better designed damage (or more precise armor) model in CA. Apparently the only leftover from that project.

 

What looks promising:

https://gunnerheatpc.com/

 

But it's just a demo and been in dev since 2017 now ...

 

[Callsign112]

16 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

Steel beasts is not a decent one. Far from it. It is the best there is. It is officially used by many militaries in crew training. They have actual real controllers attached to PC and they simulate training exercises via it.

 

What the DCS World needs, is more like a ARMA 2 or 3 level ones. Not required to be as advanced as in Steel Beasts, but offer proper sights, positions and radio/datalink.

Sure it is nice to see a interior, but you anyways mostly stare optics or displays and not much is required really.

I agree with the bold text completely, and I would add that ED already has most of the pieces to pull it together. All they would have to do as an initial effort would be to add correct sights/comms features to the vehicles that are already there.

 

But in terms of Steel Beasts being advanced, I would be interested to know more about your views on how the WWII tanks in that game are so advanced? I have never played Steel Beasts, but from the YouTube videos I have seen on WWII game play, the advanced models you are describing don't shine through in those videos when I compare it to IL2's Tank Crew. When you talk about being advanced, are you referring to the accuracy of things like ballistics and damage models, or the features and detail of the models?

 

 

Edit: I now realize that my search for Steel Beast WWII on YouTube produced hits for a game called Steel Fury. So what I watched for a comparison of WWII tanks was not Steel Beasts. I have also just discovered that Steel Beasts includes detailed models for just 2 tanks. So for WWII vehicles, there is really nothing that can compete with IL2's Tank Crew at the moment. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Callsign112

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Edit: I now realize that my search for Steel Beast WWII on YouTube produced hits for a game called Steel Fury. So what I watched for a comparison of WWII tanks was not Steel Beasts. I have also just discovered that Steel Beasts includes detailed models for just 2 tanks. So for WWII vehicles, there is really nothing that can compete with IL2's Tank Crew at the moment. 

 

Yes, the Steel Beasts is for the modern MBT's operation. Its advancements are in the ballistics and damage modeling, controls and system modeling. As well they have now what DCS World doesn't have, but would very much require:

 

 

 

That is a reason why DCS World can not be considered to become a tank simulator as it lacks such terrain capabilities that ground units requires.

It is as well the reason why the Air-Ground symmetry lacks severely the required elements as the ground combat itself is so weak. 

 

If you have a enemy in defensive positions in one side where you need to attack, and between you and the enemy is just a flat open field, you are not going to do it. It would be suicided when other can conceal themselves and have cover from your firing. Why you need to try to use other weapons like artillery or call the air strikes on their position. But what to do when the enemy is invisible to your FLIR, to your radar and even visually they are undetectable until < 1000 meters.

So the starting point would be massive artillery strikes on the general area hoping to get enough results to either get them to withdraw, damaged or maybe even damaged so you can start rolling in, and yet you need to have your own anti-air on site where there is a fight going between enemy and your air units and anti-air units. All required to be timed properly. 

So simply put you typically just withdraw from the idea to attack through there if you can't get at least the required 3:1 force multiplier for your side. 

 

That doesn't happen in the DCS. There is simply massive clash and RNG takes its place that what units destroy each other and whole combat scenario is over in 1-2 minutes, before any virtual pilot managed to get on site to deliver any support.

 

We do not have the required ground units, their capabilities to hide, engage, defend and move reasonable smart manner.

That is what we really need is that third party studios would begin to offer dozens of different units for different countries and for each era. But regardless all fancy interiors and 3D models etc. The AI needs to be redone and as well the maps. Like we still don't have small trees, rocks, bushes, various grass etc that would be randomly painted by the map maker to the fields. 

 

 

[Callsign112]

3 hours ago, sergkar said:

Yes, I read about that Abrams project in the CA forum. It's said that there were plans for a full fidelity Abrams model, but the project failed. Seems like that is the only MBT with a slightly better designed damage (or more precise armor) model in CA. Apparently the only leftover from that project.

 

What looks promising:

https://gunnerheatpc.com/

 

But it's just a demo and been in dev since 2017 now ...

 

Anyone that has not seen this yet... should. A WIP with a lot of potential. It is set in the 1985 cold war era. I am really more into WWII armored vehicles, but like what I see enough to support it.

[Callsign112]

16 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

Yes, the Steel Beasts is for the modern MBT's operation. Its advancements are in the ballistics and damage modeling, controls and system modeling. As well they have now what DCS World doesn't have, but would very much require:

 

 

 

That is a reason why DCS World can not be considered to become a tank simulator as it lacks such terrain capabilities that ground units requires.

It is as well the reason why the Air-Ground symmetry lacks severely the required elements as the ground combat itself is so weak. 

 

If you have a enemy in defensive positions in one side where you need to attack, and between you and the enemy is just a flat open field, you are not going to do it. It would be suicided when other can conceal themselves and have cover from your firing. Why you need to try to use other weapons like artillery or call the air strikes on their position. But what to do when the enemy is invisible to your FLIR, to your radar and even visually they are undetectable until < 1000 meters.

So the starting point would be massive artillery strikes on the general area hoping to get enough results to either get them to withdraw, damaged or maybe even damaged so you can start rolling in, and yet you need to have your own anti-air on site where there is a fight going between enemy and your air units and anti-air units. All required to be timed properly. 

So simply put you typically just withdraw from the idea to attack through there if you can't get at least the required 3:1 force multiplier for your side. 

 

That doesn't happen in the DCS. There is simply massive clash and RNG takes its place that what units destroy each other and whole combat scenario is over in 1-2 minutes, before any virtual pilot managed to get on site to deliver any support.

 

We do not have the required ground units, their capabilities to hide, engage, defend and move reasonable smart manner.

That is what we really need is that third party studios would begin to offer dozens of different units for different countries and for each era. But regardless all fancy interiors and 3D models etc. The AI needs to be redone and as well the maps. Like we still don't have small trees, rocks, bushes, various grass etc that would be randomly painted by the map maker to the fields. 

 

 

In terms of maps, I would say that DCS is ahead of the curve in comparison to IL2, and yet IL2 is making great progress with their Tank Crew module. Hopefully all of this will help motivate ED to put a little more into the ground war side of things.

 

Thanks for your comments.

[3WA]

3 hours ago, Fri13 said:

That doesn't happen in the DCS. There is simply massive clash and RNG takes its place that what units destroy each other and whole combat scenario is over in 1-2 minutes, before any virtual pilot managed to get on site to deliver any support.

 

We do not have the required ground units, their capabilities to hide, engage, defend and move reasonable smart manner.

That is what we really need is that third party studios would begin to offer dozens of different units for different countries and for each era. But regardless all fancy interiors and 3D models etc. The AI needs to be redone and as well the maps. Like we still don't have small trees, rocks, bushes, various grass etc that would be randomly painted by the map maker to the fields. 

 

Yes, this is what has always bothered me about DCS.  Especially since I fly mostly the Shark.  There just is no cover.  Except for trees, and they don't seem to provide much at all.  TOWs seem to zip through them like they were grass.  Everywhere is so flat.  I long for Arma or even Crysis like terrain, where I can take cover or ambush.

The Maps DEFINITELY need work for any kind of decent Ground War.  Right now, the tanks just roll at each other across the open prairie.

If DCS wants to make the Apache / heli's and COIN type aircraft, we need much more varied terrain and concealing grasses / vegetation.

I know a lot of people are oohhing and ahhhing over the Apache, but they're going to quickly realize the same problems we Shark pilots have with the terrain.  There is no cover.

Edited March 9, 2021 by 3WA

[Fri13]

56 minutes ago, 3WA said:

I know a lot of people are oohhing and ahhhing over the Apache, but they're going to quickly realize the same problems we Shark pilots have with the terrain.  There is no cover.

 

It is a two way road, while helicopters could get more concealment, the ground units gets even more. Helicopters becomes more effective and dangerous against ground units while fighters lose a lot of their effectiveness to engage ground units, but biggest winners are ground units that gain a huge benefits to move around and take a positions without being so easily engaged by air units.

 

The apache radar becomes... let's say ineffective. Similar way is with other air radars for moving target detection. FLIR becomes more about a NVG replacement than current "there are all the units".

 

It would be great to get all kind various vehicles like a Fuchs or BRDM-2 with the ATGM, as well teams carrying those missiles.

Controlling specific areas like roads would become more critical when vehicles off-road movement would be denied or restricted. So missions to destroy bridges and roads would become important. As well defend more those than just open areas. 

[Scorpion_knight]

DCS, as an environment offers great potential in terms of large scale war, processing power and resourcing needs aside of course. I simply love this simulator and have purchased a number of modules within the last 12 months. Combined Arms is one of them. 

 

I personally would like to see better use of sea based assets. Battles amongst ships would be truly emersive, if developed better. I would also like to see better use of ground troops. I have nothing but admiration for all at ED and anyone that wants to help improve this great platform. If you have been around gaming for as long as I have, this product is truly amazing already. Good luck on your venture!

[3WA]

Yes.  One day, this is going to be THE Simulator.

[Cyro80]

This is wery exiting development Ed making dynamic campaing with strategy layer behind. Talk about expanding the ground war. There was a wery good combined arms online game with flight simulator element and armor penetration calulations and infantry play with tank columns and fighter cover. Or it is actually still around, but it did not keep up with the times. WW2 online, or as it is called today battleground europe. Played that about a decade from launch and have been wishin the original vision with modern tech. DCS could be the go to platform for combined arms in a decade.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Cyro80

[Callsign112]

On 3/10/2021 at 6:58 AM, Scorpion_knight said:

DCS, as an environment offers great potential in terms of large scale war, processing power and resourcing needs aside of course. I simply love this simulator and have purchased a number of modules within the last 12 months. Combined Arms is one of them. 

 

I personally would like to see better use of sea based assets. Battles amongst ships would be truly emersive, if developed better. I would also like to see better use of ground troops. I have nothing but admiration for all at ED and anyone that wants to help improve this great platform. If you have been around gaming for as long as I have, this product is truly amazing already. Good luck on your venture!

I couldn't agree more. I would really like to see more development of the CA, and especially the WWII assets pack.

 

But if we go back to the original point to this thread, it was to get an idea whether the proposed developments would be supported.

 

As an answer to the OP, consider this: one week ago, Gunner Heat PC had 833 patrons when I first looked on March 9. Today it has 877 as I type this. In the past 2 months, the developer streams have attracted close to 10k views. This is from a single person working out of his basement. Over the last several months, he has managed to expand his team with a few part time helpers, but considering that he started this project from scratch only a few years ago, the current Alpha build is starting to attract a decent following.

 

I am very interested to hear what comes from the proposal from Battlefield Productions. As already suggested, to get its feet wet, doing a ground crew for airfields would probably be well supported and sounds like a safe bet. But I wonder what ED would think about doing a second version of their WWII assets pack. They have done it with other products like the A10, the Shark, and the FC module. I would definitely support a second version of its WWII assets with updated vehicles and infantry types/logic. The Combined Arms with WWII assets pack is such a great package if it would only get more support.

[3WA]

I've been a gamer for a few decades now.  From what I see, people are looking for a new Arma.  Not only that, but a bigger and more realistic version of it.  I see DCS: World well set up to do just that.  It just needs some work.  Besides, as a long time Arma player, I think this was the LAST Arma.  I don't think there will be another.  Arma 2 seemed the most realistic, and I'm pretty sure DCS could reach this level on the ground, and then hopefully, surpass it.

 

I tried to play War Thunder today.  They have the right idea, battleground wise, but it's worse than Arma when it comes to realism.  Turned it off in 10 minutes, as I couldn't stand it any longer.  I don't think you can even enter the aircraft.

 

However, like I said, they have the right idea.  A WORLD.  Not just sky, but a WORLD down below.

[StevanJ]

13 hours ago, 3WA said:

It just needs some work.

Some Work? Just 'Some'!

You need to let Arma go.. You keep saying " One day, this is going to be THE Simulator. "
Think about that, think about when that might happen..
Its taken nearly 5 glorious years to get the Hornet to where it is..

And all you want is Arma for DCS.. Go play Arma!
Or even Battlefield 4 (which is awesome), Ill even come with you!

You guys have just spent the last two pages promoting other Tank simulators.
Youve not said one good thing about DCS, while youve been fantasising that 'DCS need to be Arma'.. No, it doesnt, so let it go.
Fuelled by 'Forum Stickers', You seem to have Hyped whatever game it is youre 'talking about' and pulled it into a fantasy world crossed with DCS.
I support the dream as ive previously mentioned, but you guys have pulled this thread so far from topic, no body would know its a post asking us if we want more paid assets.

I too love this game, but I was thinking this game actually need a 'huge amount' of work- Not 'some', just to get it up to an average standard of running gameplay for every single player from the ground, to the sky..
Im expensively patient and i can wait, but if theres a way in which i can ask that resources be put into the game first, id rather they did that 'than actually adding stuff to it' at a cost to us..

How's another asset pack going to make this game any better, when it doesnt run that well (-not complaining)?
The FA18 is THE highlight and flagship of DCS, nothing will ever again compare to that module. Nothing..
It will be a very welcome suprise if the F-16, and newer modules surpass the quality to which has gone into the FA18 module, the quality in the craftsmanship is phenomenal, and every coder, artist, and 3d model maker that has worked on it, can raise his head in pride.. The quality in the workmanship and everyone that has committed to that module is just overwhelmingly fantastic and it does represent the game at its highest level.

I can not wait for 2026 when the Apache will more than likely becoming to a finish too.
Any kid or adult can now fulfil his dreams of flight, for only £80.
The Hornet runs 'very nearly' perfectly (with the exception of the game engine, and maps).. But after how long and how much work..


@Callsign112 Youd pay for ANOTHER 'ww2 Asset Pack'? Are you high?
Why? So you can chill in a field shooting AI that many dont like- that looks prettier while running at low FPS?

I cant even get the AI to takeoff without some bug or another being an issue.
How am i gonna shoot down 'paid target pack' when i cant get my Warbird off the ground, or at least into the air, without the engine seizing randomly?

Lets try and all work together to get the core game working properly before we look to implement a 'new arma' or another 'WW2 Asset Pack'..
I understand you guys want a tank module and so would i, but from the way youre talking about this other game- Id think youd be better off with that game instead of DCS.
At least start a new Topic of discussion if youre going to carry on.

[Fri13]

14 hours ago, 3WA said:

from what I see, people are looking for a new Arma.  Not only that, but a bigger and more realistic version of it.  I see DCS: World well set up to do just that.  It just needs some work.  

 

ARMA is a infantry game, the vehicles in it are secondary. The DCS World is a vehicle simulator, primarily for the pilots and secondary for a ground vehicle commanders.

The level how ARMA works can not work in the DCS really. And why so? It is the realtime limitation. A infantry soldier daily tasks are boring, even at the wartime. There is not much to shoot at, you do not even want to be shot at. You might go for a 8 hour patrols, you can be 12 hours just guarding some place or maybe being transported. 

 

The vehicles like aircraft pilots has totally different tasking. DCS World doesn't simulate pilots debriefing, their free time, their mission planning etc. It simulates only the cockpit time. And that time can be 1-2 hours of flying and 5-15 minutes of action, but that is it. For a soldier, action can be a 12-72 hours of unknown thing, a one guy somewhere. Patrolling areas etc. 

 

DCS World can model well a ground vehicle commander tasking, like a SAM operator two stations or maybe a one MBT/IFV/APC seat at the time while AI takes care of the rest. But even there it becomes to be boring and just hanging out. For a 2-3 hour playtime at one evening one might do nothing, literally nothing. While pilot at least might go to perform a CAP or be on CAS, even when nothing happens it is just flying, something totally different than going for a 2-3 hour driving patrol. 

 

What the DCS World seriously needs is the dynamic warfare, where the AI needs to be all the way from single soldier capable to full companies full of those AI soldiers. The ground war should become more about RTS game than anything else.  Make the DCS: Combined Arms behave like a Wargame or Armored Brigade RTS games and we would have a lot of all kind possibilities to play with dozens of RTS gamers operating on the ground. Add there a strategy mode that really are used for the strategies instead tactics and you would get players to work for those goals. 

 

 

Large proportion of the whole DCS World should be then the intelligence gathering. We would totally need a recon pods and proper recon teams and vehicles. So that we can fly and search enemy, try to get the intelligence to the strategic maps and use it as source to generate the sorties for attacks and help RTS gamers to make their tactical plans and make requests for support etc. 

 

The current Combined Arms style where RTS gamer could jump to individual vehicle would still work, but that there would be FPS gamers doing things? Not really a thing.

It would even be a more achievable to integrate a Men of War kind infantry RTS mechanism to the DCS World so that someone could try to use infantry in different manners.

 

Combined Arms is already having foot in the door for that to happen. A massive strategic and tactical game where RTS gamers fight the ground and surface, while virtual pilots fight in the air assisting them.

The DCS:CA would work great even if there would be two players for both sides, among couple dozen virtual pilots. Where two players for both sides as FPS players would never work anywhere. Like who would want to be in a transport vehicle for 1-2 hours to travel 40 km only to sit in a ditch?

 

IMHO alone a Wargame like gameplay in Combined Arms would make fancy gameplay with a friend on the ground while you are up in a air as helicopter/fighter pilot.

And that is where these 3rd party studios developing different era countries ground unit packs could be huge deal. No need at all to go to deep simulation and modeling per unit as it would be enough to be in a exterior quality only. To offer the true capabilities (weapons etc) would ease their tasks.

And there is always more RTS gamers than there are virtual pilots, and they have learn in the decades time what "one turn more" means, as slow paced combat can be very rewarding for them, where FPS gamers get bored to death in that time. 

[Callsign112]

2 hours ago, StevanJ said:

 but you guys have pulled this thread so far from topic, no body would know its a post asking us if we want more paid assets.

I too love this game, but I was thinking this game actually need a 'huge amount' of work- Not 'some', just to get it up to an average standard of running gameplay for every single player from the ground, to the sky..
Im expensively patient and i can wait, but if theres a way in which i can ask that resources be put into the game first, id rather they did that 'than actually adding stuff to it' at a cost to us..

How's another asset pack going to make this game any better, when it doesnt run that well (-not complaining)?
The FA18 is THE highlight and flagship of DCS, nothing will ever again compare to that module. Nothing..
It will be a very welcome suprise if the F-16, and newer modules surpass the quality to which has gone into the FA18 module, the quality in the craftsmanship is phenomenal, and every coder, artist, and 3d model maker that has worked on it, can raise his head in pride.. The quality in the workmanship and everyone that has committed to that module is just overwhelmingly fantastic and it does represent the game at its highest level.

I can not wait for 2026 when the Apache will more than likely becoming to a finish too.
Any kid or adult can now fulfil his dreams of flight, for only £80.
The Hornet runs 'very nearly' perfectly (with the exception of the game engine, and maps).. But after how long and how much work..


@Callsign112 Youd pay for ANOTHER 'ww2 Asset Pack'? Are you high?
Why? So you can chill in a field shooting AI that many dont like- that looks prettier while running at low FPS?

I cant even get the AI to takeoff without some bug or another being an issue.
How am i gonna shoot down 'paid target pack' when i cant get my Warbird off the ground, or at least into the air, without the engine seizing randomly?

Lets try and all work together to get the core game working properly before we look to implement a 'new arma' or another 'WW2 Asset Pack'..
I understand you guys want a tank module and so would i, but from the way youre talking about this other game- Id think youd be better off with that game instead of DCS.
At least start a new Topic of discussion if youre going to carry on.

No but... ickup... my drink could use a little refill. Let me know when your getting up, I'll give you my order!

 

And maybe you should also consider a little bit of your own advice while your at it. This is not a thread about how poor the AI works, or about how the F18 is the flagship module, or whether your able to get the mission editor to work, or how we are all going to get the core game to work, or whether we should vote on who wants to play Battlefield 4. It is about a third party developer interested in adding content to the DCS world.

 

I get your point about not being able to fly with your friends because they don't have the assets pack, but I don't agree with your view that because your friends didn't buy it, the developer should give it for free... News flash, your friends are going to have just as difficult a time flying with you if they don't buy the planes and maps as well.

 

So in my view, the solution to the problem you are pointing to is not how to convince the developers to throw freebies at your friends, it should be more what would make the asset pack more appealing so that your friends want to buy it. Which is kinda the intention of my suggestion to the OP.

 

The original announcement was very unspecific, except that the intention would be to add ground assets to the DCS world as a start (with improved AI infantry), and build up to more detailed projects in the future. And my suggestion for an updated WWII assets pack is not directed at Battlefield Productions alone, but also includes Eagle Dynamics. It is just a suggestion, and I don't see why it should be taken as being so far fetched. I mean its not like I'm asking someone to develop a game world for me and my friends for free or anything like that. Sound familiar?

 

They have updated numerous modules before with second, and even third versions if I understand it correctly, and they could do the same with the WWII assets pack if they wanted to. The answer to your question WHY is because I really enjoy using the WWII pack, I think with the Normandy map and CA, it makes a really great package that contains a lot of interesting options and possibilities. With a little bit of support, it also has the potential to be so much more.

 

Can I pour you another drink? I noticed the last couple hit the floor. 

[StevanJ]

 

5 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

And maybe you should also consider a little bit of your own advice while your at it. This is not a thread about how poor the AI works, or about how the F18 is the flagship module, or whether your able to get the mission editor to work, or how we are all going to get the core game to work, or whether we should vote on who wants to play Battlefield 4. It is about a third party developer interested in adding content to the DCS world.

I see what youre doing, youre using my own words against me, well im honoured.. How very manipulative and passive aggressive.
Ive kept a majority of my conversation on topic, and used references to modules that work well, so that you have an understanding of how Arma DCS wouldnt work well given the scale of this game.
 

On 3/14/2021 at 4:41 PM, Cyro80 said:

This is wery exiting development Ed making dynamic campaing with strategy layer behind. Talk about expanding the ground war. There was a wery good combined arms online game with flight simulator element and armor penetration calulations and infantry play with tank columns and fighter cover. Or it is actually still around, but it did not keep up with the times. WW2 online, or as it is called today battleground europe. Played that about a decade from launch and have been wishin the original vision with modern tech. DCS could be the go to platform for combined arms in a decade.

 

This is what you guys are doing, youre getting hype up for 'Ed making dynamic campaing with strategy layer behind' despite this not being mentioned at all.
BP have numerous times explained that they are looking to sell another Asset Pack.
Stop making stuff up. Stop posting videos of other Tanks games to increase false hype.
Start a new thread if you want to talk about other Tanks Games, and stop talking about 'DCS Arma'.

Let people come in and tell BP wether or not they'll pay for another Asset Pack.
I want to find out what other people are interested in, and youre diverting the topic.

Edited March 17, 2021 by StevanJ

[3WA]

1 hour ago, StevanJ said:

manipulative and passive aggressive.

 

Take a look in the mirror Steve.

You know, you're making a lot of people's ignore lists.

Edited March 17, 2021 by 3WA

[Fri13]

4 hours ago, StevanJ said:

This is what you guys are doing, youre getting hype up for 'Ed making dynamic campaing with strategy layer behind' despite this not being mentioned at all.

 

 

If I remember correctly, Matt Wagner talks about the strategy layer in the Dynamic Campaign with Combined Arms in that interview 3 years ago.

What exactly there will be is questionable, but years back Eagle Dynamics hired a senior RTS game developer to exactly bring the RTS aspects to the DCS World. 

And that is what dynamic campaign is about, strategies (plans ahead of whole campaign) and tactics to fulfill those (individual units inside a groups, smaller groups individual combat movements and engagements).

 

 

And if Eagle Dynamics would to remove the RTS element from the game... There wouldn't be a dynamic campaign and there wouldn't be a Combined Arms where players can command troops. The RTS is already in the game, in extremely simple manner, just like the AI is extremely simple. 

 

At least because the LUA scripting the game supports, lots of things can be done in complex manner but it isn't really a "AI" as in sense of units. 

 

 

4 hours ago, StevanJ said:

BP have numerous times explained that they are looking to sell another Asset Pack.

 

Yes, they have. But what they would be offering in those Assets Packs is the question is there people interested for them.

 

4 hours ago, StevanJ said:

Stop making stuff up. Stop posting videos of other Tanks games to increase false hype.
Start a new thread if you want to talk about other Tanks Games, and stop talking about 'DCS Arma'.

 

Well, let's quote Battlefield Productions own first post:

 

"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."

 

I am sorry, but that can't be any more clearer way to say that Battlefield Productions is searching is it possibility by DCS engine and Eagle Dynamics future plans to make a "full fidelity" vehicle that is at the same level like F/A-18C or F-14B are, but just for the round. 

 

So when the possible third party provider is researching a interest for such functions, there is no need to start new threads to talk about other games as those are the direct comparisons that what could be expected from the future in DCS World if those ideas could be developed. 

 

4 hours ago, StevanJ said:

Let people come in and tell BP wether or not they'll pay for another Asset Pack.

 

That is the discussion here, WHAT FOR and HOW IT WORKS are the questions that many gets to be able answer "Would I buy those things". 

Like if NOTHING would change from the current DCS World when it comes to:

- ground units 3D animation (walking, crawling, prone, sprinting, mounting/unmounting, entering/exiting, single fire/burst/full auto, moral/alarm status etc) 

- ground units AI logic and independent operation and co-operation with other units (communications, intelligence and information sharing, working together)

- Combined Arms owners capability control and play various new units

- Different unit capabilities (IR search lights, thermal sights/scopes, messengers or radios or hand signals etc) 

 

4 hours ago, StevanJ said:

I want to find out what other people are interested in, and youre diverting the topic.

 

Maybe you should check out that what the DCS World is currently offering, what is possible could offer, and how it should be developed further to start supporting a more completed ground/surface warfare, so that new ground units are possible to be added to it. 

 

If we receive a new units without any new features and improvements to the status quo, then it is waste of time really. As literally the new assets packs would be just a reskinned existing infantry and vehicles and with same flawed "AI". 

 

Example we have in the fighters a proper radar and IR seekers scan zones. Eagle Dynamics made this first to the F/A-18C Hornet, that made the radar far more realistic than what so far there were as all FC3 aircraft radars were "all seeing eyes" that sees everything but there has been just added small delay that when a target inside the full FOV is suppose to be seen.

In Hornet it really became a radar beam that is scanned:

 

Here is Razbam version in M2000C module using a IR seeker Magic II missile and the radar:

(sorry to use Facebook, but Razbam does not communicate with the DCS users in this forum and they lock everything to their Facebook account only)

https://www.facebook.com/RazbamSims/videos/1056379681407524/

 

 

Before that the Heatblur developed Viggen was with it, by using Heatblur own Air-to-Ground radar technology (couple years earlier than Eagle Dynamics made own that is included in SDK for others:

 

 What does this have to do with the ground units you might ask, a lot. As the technology evolves, we want more advanced and more realistic simulations.

And one side of the air combat is the ground combat. Hence this Battlefield Productions query for interest for such units. And one of the major missing feature in the current form is the lack of proper ground units simulation. 

 

Everyone learn in couple months that in DCS that some ground units are "snipers". Like T-55 gunner shooting with 12.7 mm roof gun is very accurate. The LAV-25 gunner is real sniper, placing few accurate shots from couple kilometer range on almost anything that is flying. 

There is simply unrealistic capabilities when the ground unit can see and engage any unit that it just has 1) Range 2) LOS. Before the new DCS mat technology (as the interview in the above with Wags) there was no collision with trees. You could fly through them, you could shoot through them, and the AI totally shot at you through them without you never knowing where the shot came. 

The DCS 1.5 changed all that in Caucasus (tech came in 2.0 Alpha but NTTR doesn't really have trees same manner). 

 

And that really demands that ground units would receive a realistic Field Of View restrictions, scanning and spotting capabilities, just like a radars does have. And before you go to argue about CPU requirements etc making it impossible, there is already a solution for all that. It is called simulation. When the player is not nearby, there is no requirement to go full physics simulation. Just like in any other flight simulator decades ago, combat somewhere far away is just rolling a dice. A simple card game where players pull the card out of their combat deck and then compare it to each others and rolls a dice. This has been done so on in Falcon game series as almost in any RTS game out there. It is called cheating, but it is a requirement to keep things simple. And DCS World huge advantage is that it is real time based, not accelerated time or turn based. Meaning that resources required to run tens of thousands units is negligent at the current era for a single core CPU. Because in the modern combat era there likely is never a time where more than hundred units would be engaging each others at the same moment, and mostly it is couple/few units engaging each other so it is not 100 units seeing 100 and all trying to shoot each other, but it is 2 vs 3 or 1 vs 5 case scenarios where the engagement happens every 15-30 seconds or so.

 Everyone in DCS probably know that placing a 50 units in tight group formation and then dropping 4x Mk-20 rockeyes on them will make any PC to drop frames seriously. Problems are 1) that it is totally unrealistic scenario and 2) the LUA scripting for such damage modeling/calculations is very inefficient when everything is tried to be run same time. Meaning that on the moment the bomb is triggered to explode, LOS is calculated, all units inside it will be marked for "damage" and all units starts to move, movement logic, collision logic and all are triggered on the exact same time because one event. That is just unrealistic and impossible. 

The same thing is in the fighters, on the moment the fighter receives an damage that will make it unflyable, the AI has already decided to eject the pilots. Like there is no delay, no question that do they survive or not. While the pilots are forced to be ready eject in emergency situations like landing on carrier, the reality is that they are not ejecting on the exact moment the missile explodes by them being able make battle damage analysis that flight is over. 

 

So what we need in DCS is that each ground unit will have properly set Field Of View zones for each crew member. 

Inside that zone is the crew member Line Of Sight with a scanning pattern. These are not required to be run all the time on all units. It can be cheated. Only the units that "Cheat AI" will mark to be "capable to engage" will trigger units AI's to perform the scanning, roll a dice that does the individual crew member spot the enemy vehicle or not, and only then to engage the units.

 

So example in the below the BMP-3 commander has vision blocks around (red zone) and is currently searching target toward camera (green square) by scanning the horizon. The driver has same thing but limited to forward. The gunner has narrow field of view using gun sight, and scanning by limits of the turret azimuth/elevation but in expected/reported/lastseen/spotted target area. 

 

Meanwhile no one is looking at the sky. The vehicle crew would be completely incapable to spot a fighter diving toward them to drop a bomb. If someone doesn't alert them and they concentrate for searching a sky etc. They can't see, and what they can't see they can't engage. 

 

Each ground unit would be required to have these things properly set. The damage modeling that is coming to ground units already includes the crew members positions for their damage. So killing a commander would slow down things, make radio communications impossible with outside and the visibility from its station are removed.

 

This would mean that T-55 is not a dangerous threat to air units unless a commander open up the hatch and pop-up to use the DShKM/NSVT and then be very vulnerable for fragmentation and other attacks. Driver can't see well outside if buttoned down, but if opens hatch and puts head out they can move fast and effectively etc.  

LAV-25 wouldn't be anymore a sniper, its limited stabilization and targeting system doesn't make it great against fast movers even at low level unless flying toward and it has been spotted first. 

 

Now, you wouldn't put a armored platoon to move on area that is unknown from threats as they don't have visibility outside to fight hidden enemy. Infantry becomes more important and effective, where we could simply model things similar manner where crawling soldier is not spotted by vehicle crews. Infantry might not be able shoot from that stance, but they could take a knee and then become partially visible and possible to be engaged. But this way you could have a ATGM team or RPG pair crawling to position engage a armored unit.

 

And now becomes all these fancy new different eras ground armies units make more sense when their capabilities changes a lot.

Like how cool it would be that in the 80's pilots could use NVG to see where IR search lights scans the landscape in combat?

A FLIR would provide passive capability engage ground targets without revealing position to enemy.

Units without either one are just inaccurate or even unable to fight if they can't see. Combat would slow down and night attacks becomes horrified for ground units when a special units like AH-64 crew can use NVG and FLIR to engage them freely, forcing ground units to search concealment and cover deep in the forests etc. 

 

All that requires the DCS core functions to be changed more advanced and capable.

As without new features the new ground units doesn't make much sense over current ones.

But once there starts to be more specialized, more advanced or limited units from different countries and different eras, the ground combat becomes more interesting.

And that affects directly what the pilots can do in the air. A Viggen or Harrier performing a low altitude strike mission couple hours from the recon that one pilot made and recorded the enemy troops positions, it becomes more possible as there might not be anyone spotting them in time until the strike is already done.   

 

 

From 14:45 to 16:45

 

 

Like how much would it add to the DCS World when we would even get the recon capabilities to ground units and air units? A recon team making the spotting and reporting back over radio later on. Pilot going to do the mission with recon pod. 15 minutes from the successful landing back to base and units appear on the strategic map as generic area, and the taken photos are the "accurate" information only. So pilot can't see on F10 map exact units types, position or anything like that. It is visual spotting and so on all about.

In the dynamic campaign the pilot can first to play RTS commander, then perform the recon flight, and then the strike mission itself. 

In multiplayer players could be performing the recon flights to areas that are suspected have enemy forces etc. 

[StevanJ]

@Fri13 Once again context has been pulled so far out of the thread that now you're on the second loop around.
Can you please stop taking focus away from BP's post.

I read the first half of this spam, and ignored the last half as it has no relevance to BP's original post.
 

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

In multiplayer players could be performing the recon flights to areas that are suspected have enemy forces etc. 

 
We dont know that, an argument might suggest, that they couldnt if they dont have the 'necessary asset pack'.

Edited March 17, 2021 by StevanJ

[StevanJ]

7 hours ago, 3WA said:

 

Take a look in the mirror Steve.

You know, you're making a lot of people's ignore lists.

 

Callsign112 referenced alcohol numerous times while highlighting my post. My guess is that he's trying to Insult me by insinuating I am an alcoholic.
And yet im the one being threatened with an 'ignore list', because i want to see other people opinion and dont want to see other tank games spammed in the post..
 

[draconus]

Since the OP is about the DCS future no wonder all this visionary flow.

[Fri13]

41 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

@Fri13 Once again context has been pulled so far out of the thread that now you're on the second loop around.
Can you please stop taking focus away from BP's post.

 

I am in the context the Battlefield Production is suggesting to bring to the DCS World.

If you do not read what the OP is about, know what the DCS World future is about, then no wonder you see everything else as off-topic.

So stop attacking persons and focus to the topic. 

 

41 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

I read the first half of this spam, and ignored the last half as it has no relevance to BP's original post.

 

You just made my point. 

1) You do not understand the OP.

2) You do not read.

3) You just do personal attacks when everyone else is in the OP topic, that you do not understand.

 

 

41 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

 We dont know that, an argument might suggest, that they couldnt if they dont have the 'necessary asset pack'.

 

And now you pull an fancy argument to be against the whole assets packs.... 

Such asset packs are underwork as there is no third party offering those. Just like the Super Carrier, it requires Eagle Dynamics to actually first develop the structure for it all. The WW2 Assets Pack is currently unique to help to finance the WW2 side of the game.

 

In the future the DCS World needs to have the features that even the OP is talking about (and you are denying it, as you don't read or understand it) so that it can support new kind assets packs. 

And those assets packs would be required to be like in many other games like ARMA 3 DLC's. Where everyone downloads them, they will see them, but they can not have access to them. 

Meaning, everyone see ground units, they work and behave like anything. But only those who have Combined Arms can command ground units in RTS mode (commander positions requires Combined Arms), enter to vehicles (again requires Combined Arms) to operate them as a SAM operator, as a crew commander, and of course to get access to their specialities.

Finally without the Assets Pack one can not build a mission, save a mission etc without ownin the assets pack. So second party can not provide a mission file where units are placed on the terrain and then player would get access to them in editor or in game or single player. All that would be denied without license.

 

Like in the other games (like Battlefield) you can pick up a DLC weapon from a dead body, but you can not spawn with one. Like in ARMA, you can pick up a weapon but not spawn with it.

You can enter to the vehicle as a passenger, but not drive it or shoot from it etc without owning the DLC.

 

In the DCS World it would mean that everyone could download the assets packs, so they can see them on maps, they can fight against them or support them etc. They just don't have access to use them.  This is all already in the DCS World. You can own license only to F/A-18C Hornet only, yet you can place all the modules on the map you do not own and make AI fly them. You can invite your friend to server and he can fly the modules he has the license, even when you do not have license to them. That is as well how the super carrier works, they didn't split the online community to "owners" and "not-owners".

 

This is not the problem. This is not in the discussion of this.

Super Carrier is more complex stuff than round units, because carrier is a vehicle that is used for landing, rearming and take-off. The same is not with the ground vehicles interaction with the air units. They will shoot at you, and react to you. One could make argument that what would a supply units do on the ground for people who do not own them? Like tanker and ammunition truck? Well, there is a solution for that as well. 

 

Your argument that "You can't see the units if you don't own the assets pack" or "You can't join to server if you don't own the assets pack" are off-topic and invalid to begin with.

 

[Fri13]

46 minutes ago, draconus said:

Since the OP is about the DCS future no wonder all this visionary flow.

 

DCS World requires a lot of changes and new features before the OP can be done. So question is, IF DCS World gets in future what kind a features and capabilities, would they make possible to implement the OP suggested features (like a highly detailed MBT interiors and operations at level like a F/A-18C is modeled by Eagle Dynamics, aka "Tank Simulator") and are there then interest for people to invest money for them. We partially can leave 80% of the OP post out and we would come to discussion only about reskinning the current infantry and ground vehicles, maybe add few new models with new weapons. So example instead a AKM soldier we would have a Kar98k Soldier. Instead M4 soldier we would have a M1 Thompson soldier. Instead M1A1 Abrams, we would have a M60 Patton, M551 Sheridan and later M1 Abrams and M1IP Abrams. Nothing would really change by any means that what now is offered, except that you couldn't enter the vehicles or command them unless you own the assets pack with the combined arms module. 

 

But, as OP states, they have far far more wishes for DCS World. And it widens the context far further from than that. Requiring elements of RTS game, Vehicle Crew simulator, Communication/Intelligence systems, IADS simulator as suggested by another company etc:

 

And all this requires very heavy changes to DCS World structure how these are sold, accessed and used by the players of the DCS World. What kind functions and capabilities all these requires.  These third party companies needs to work with the Eagle Dynamics, and very closely. To come together the capabilities and functions required to make these things to work.

 

And all people don't seem to understand the complexity and wide features the topic includes, as right now those can not be added, and DCS World needs to start supporting them before they can even be considered to be added. 

 

This is already a DCS World:

 

But if nothing changes in DCS World, then it is almost moot point to add anything as the DCS World at this moment doesn't have the AI to operate properly, nor Combined Arms support a proper features, and the terrain engine etc are lacking everything for ground units. 

So what are expectations? 

 

 

How would anyone do that kind basic thing without very severe scripting? DCS World is not capable for that kind thing. So what use do we have for any of those additional units if they do not operate properly independently by the doctrine under control of AI?

 

Some people should go look how Steel Beasts are used by the professionals (from the cadets to ex military personnel with experience to operate correctly as trained). Check out their communications and their tactics... And compare it to DCS World.

 

IF someone wants sales for their work to add those, it needs to be a lot more than just few fancy units to sit in the "X-airfield" as target for GBU-12.....

 

[Silver_Dragon]

About Tank Modules:
Someone missing years ago Wags request info about M-1 Abrams tank and surely that info was use to a study about a "land" API module. No more info was show about them, but that has the same situations with the "SuperCarrier" module, a stub to build the first "Sea" Module" API, put the blocks to fill DCS environment. That require making "black magic" previously to that working.

 

About Dynamic Campaign

After Wags video, other Simon, Nick Grey and others has talked about Dynamic Campaign features, remember the 2021 Newsletter:

Quote

 

Dynamic Campaign

This massive task has been underway for over two years, and the progress has been exciting. The campaign is built around a Real-Time Strategy (RTS) foundation that factors resources, zones of control, logistics, available forces, and a strategic decision-making system. While we believe internal testing will continue in the 1st quarter of 2021, it is too early to estimate a release date. However, external Beta testing is planned hopefully in Q2/Q3 2021.

 

 

That take steeps, as the Weather or the comunications system, all take time.

Edited March 17, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[Fri13]

2 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

About Tank Modules:
Someone missing years ago Wags request info about M-1 Abrams tank and surely that info was use to a study about a "land" API module. No more info was show about them, but that has the same situations with the "SuperCarrier" module, a stub to build the first "Sea" Module" API, put the blocks to fill DCS environment.

 

Is it possible that "land API module" is partially put now to upcoming the second free map? Based its terrain details and many other things because small land mass, and how it could be used in the future for other maps as well? 

Like how long did it take to redo the Caucasus map for new technologies or how much NTTR was postponed because requirement to develop EDGE?

There was the fancy video about M1 Abrams new animations for acceleration, track physics and all that. But since deleted (or well concealed by saturation).

 

2 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

About Dynamic Campaign

After Wags video, other Simon, Nick Grey and others has talked about Dynamic Campaign features, remember the 2021 Newsletter:

 

That take steeps, as the Weather or the comunications system, all take time.

 

Yes, IMHO 10 year period is expected because already existing code base and products. If the DCS World would start from the scratch, then it would be far more easier and faster to do but we could easily scratch the existing modules then...