Infantry - Combined Arms

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I am assuming by RTS,

I meant strategy game like Total War

[Callsign112]

Sorry, I was confusing that with First Person Shooter, as in Battle Field. But CA is quite different from something like total war, because you see the game world from the vehicle you are driving/flying. CA is unique in that it incorporates elements of a strategy based game by allowing a player in the SIM to control as well as man other units. But CA does not take away from the fact that DCS World is primarily a SIM, it adds to it IMO.

[zaelu]

The level of detail in DCS especially the models are above a lot of very well known FPS shooters from few years ago not to mention older ones that simply were "garbage" compared with DCS and everything in them played basically in a matchbox. Things like Call of duty 1 and 2 or Medal of Honor.
It really just needs a bit of attention that's all. But I guess ED focusses a bit too much on tasks at hand nowadays.

The fact that we control the ejected pilot (I keep bring him up because is the closest thing to a FPS infantry stuff) by pushing the stick and moving the rudder pedals and not even by the clumsy but usable CA controls is mystifying for me.
There are players in this world... most of them I dare to say that would impulse buy a game just because they see a friend or a youtuber doing something interesting/original/funny in a game. Why ED just doesn't provide a little bit more than incomplet tools for that to happen is unknown to me. 
Oh well.
 

Edited May 25, 2021 by zaelu

[SharpeXB]

31 minutes ago, zaelu said:

The level of detail in DCS especially the models are above a lot of very well known FPS shooters from few years ago not to mention older ones that simply were "garbage" compared with DCS and everything in them played basically in a matchbox. Things like Call of duty 1 and 2 or Medal of Honor.

No, ground-level DCS is not better than the current crop of FPS games. Have you seen an FPS game lately? The games you mention were made in 1999-2003 

Being better than a 20 year old game isn’t much of an achievement. 

[Callsign112]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

No, ground-level DCS is not better than the current crop of FPS games. Have you seen an FPS game lately? The games you mention were made in 1999-2003 

Being better than a 20 year old game isn’t much of an achievement. 

Are you comparing games like total war to DCS in terms of what runs in the background, or just the cartoon story book graphics you get in total war? If I look at something like the SC for example, I am totally okay with the level of graphics we have at the moment considering what is going on in the simulated battle. And all of the ground level graphics are there even if I'm in a plane/jet, so I don't see the problem.

[SharpeXB]

12 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

If I look at something like the SC for example, I am totally okay with the level of graphics we have at the moment considering what is going on in the simulated battle.

SC is indeed very good with the deck crew figures and animations. Seeing other ground personnel or infantry modeled like that would be great.
 

This thread is sorta mixing up topics though, the OP asked for “first person shooter” gameplay. I don’t think it’s feasible for DCS to do that. 

On 3/25/2021 at 9:58 AM, jwflowersii said:

A full on FPS would be great addition

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Callsign112]

9 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

SC is indeed very good with the deck crew figures and animations. Seeing other ground personnel or infantry modeled like that would be great.
 

This thread is sorta mixing up topics though, the OP asked for “first person shooter” gameplay. I don’t think it’s feasible for DCS to do that. 

 

 

I think a first person shooter is more then doable, as it is already being done to great effect. The map size would bring its own set of issues no doubt, but nothing that couldn't be addressed one way or another I am sure. I think the answer to the OP's question is that at the moment, ED has stated they will not pursue a Battle Field type game unless it was something being requested by their military partners. I am pointing out that what we have already with CA is much better then a FPS, ED just needs to improve the AI infantry component.

[SharpeXB]

47 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I think the answer to the OP's question is that at the moment, ED has stated they will not pursue a Battle Field type game unless it was something being requested by their military partners.

Well we have the answer… so. I think if they did this it would end up being an entirely different game. If you see what the military uses for this kind of training you wouldn’t want to buy it as a game  think Call of Duty -1

47 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I think a first person shooter is more then doable, as it is already being done to great effect.

How so? DCS doesn’t currently have anything like an FPS. Do you play any games besides DCS to be familiar with that type of game?

Edited May 25, 2021 by SharpeXB

[zaelu]

I said few yeas ago not 'current crop of FPS games'.

Although I did played a little Squad, a little Arma 3(?), I even installed Enlisted to see if there is something to look at  - I am not really impressed I must say... but then again those games are not my cup of tea at the moment. I am a bit done with triple A glowing shaders-upon-shining shaders FPS franchises.
But technically, I don't consider number one important for a shooter to be super high fidelity graphics.
No.1 should be the mechanics and here DCS can achieve the level no problem. Skeletal animation iirc is in the works. Decent damage model framework is in the works. It's doable for what is necessary here. I don't care about seeing correct translucence on face freckles adjusted for skin color, age and degree of hygiene.

As a matter of fact what is easy to observe is that many good FPS games tend to get closer to the idea of open sand box combat sim... like Arma and Squad. Obviously they can't get closer to the complexity of a study sim for their planes and helis... but the other way around is totally doable. DCS can have some half decent infantry action. 

Edited May 25, 2021 by zaelu

[Callsign112]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Well we have the answer… so. I think if they did this it would end up being an entirely different game. If you see what the military uses for this kind of training you wouldn’t want to buy it as a game  think Call of Duty -1

How so? DCS doesn’t currently have anything like an FPS. Do you play any games besides DCS to be familiar with that type of game?

 

Doable as in I think an FPS would be nothing over the heads of the Dev team here. They would have to address issues with overhead, but they could put up a FPS if they wanted to. But why would they want to do that when they have something so much better as it stand now? For me, its not real fun to be in a FPS and a jet/plane comes along every 30 seconds or so and deletes you. Oh goodie, I get to go back to the spawn and start all the fcuk over because some dude that I can't even see is like... the dope in this game!! I've been playing this for almost 3 years now, imagine what it must be life for the guy just starting out. Yeah been there, done that, bought the T!

[SharpeXB]

4 minutes ago, zaelu said:

I said few yeas ago not 'current crop of FPS games'.

Although I did played a little Squad, a little Arma 3(?), I even installed Enlisted to see if there is something to look at  - I am not really impressed I must say... but then again those games are not my cup of tea at the moment. I am a bit done with triple A glowing shaders-upon-shining shaders FPS franchises.
But technically, I don't consider number one important for a shooter to be super high fidelity graphics.
No.1 should be the mechanics and here DCS can achieve the level no problem. Skeletal animation iirc is in the works. Decent damage model framework is in the works. It's doable for what is necessary here. I don't care about seeing correct translucence on face freckles adjusted for skin color, age and degree of hygiene.

 

The real challenge is the map. And the simple fact that the size and detail levels between a flight and FPS game are just incompatible. For an FPS game you need highly detailed terrain and buildings not just for eye candy but with rooms you can get inside. They need to be destructible. You can’t make a map that detailed and also have it large enough for a combat flight scenario. It just isn’t feasible. 

7 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Oh goodie, I get to go back to the spawn and start all the fcuk over because some dude that I can't even see is like... the dope in this game!

Right. Infantry in a full scale war as is depicted in DCS would just get slaughtered by air power. So why would anyone play infantry?

[Callsign112]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

The real challenge is the map. And the simple fact that the size and detail levels between a flight and FPS game are just incompatible. For an FPS game you need highly detailed terrain and buildings not just for eye candy but with rooms you can get inside. They need to be destructible. You can’t make a map that detailed and also have it large enough for a combat flight scenario. It just isn’t feasible. 

Well its more than feasible, but it might exceed the 8GB limit. And there are ways around the map issue, but again, I don't believe ED should go the route of a FPS. When I look at the CA module, clearly ED knows what they are doing, at least as far as my own experience is concerned.

[Callsign112]

9 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The real challenge is the map. And the simple fact that the size and detail levels between a flight and FPS game are just incompatible. For an FPS game you need highly detailed terrain and buildings not just for eye candy but with rooms you can get inside. They need to be destructible. You can’t make a map that detailed and also have it large enough for a combat flight scenario. It just isn’t feasible. 

Right. Infantry in a full scale war as is depicted in DCS would just get slaughtered by air power. So why would anyone play infantry?

You wouldn't, nor do you have to. In CA, you place the infantry assets you want on the ground, while you view the field from a tank/APC/Humvee/jet. And you don't have to rely on large numbers of players on the server to keep the action going. You can add the amount of AI infantry needed for the desired level of action.

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Well its more than feasible,

A map the size of the Caucuses with cities which all have fully modeled destructible buildings that you can go inside? Forget the PC power, there’s the labor required to model it too. You really need to look at what an FPS game is like out there before dreaming up stuff like this. 

[Callsign112]

Saying something is feasible doesn't mean it was said without thought!

[jwflowersii]

I've thought a lot more on this topic and if you build the back end "data system" this is completely doable and it wouldn't have to be within the same game engine.  Here is an example of how the system would work.  

 

Overview - Once a dynamic campaign is completed, all of the below becomes possible.  

 

First Person Shooter - This is not necessarily what you would consider today's FPS.  At any point you can select an infantry unit within the campaign and control a squad or have friends all join the same squad.  You are inserted into the mission at a certain point in time (in battle or in preparation) and fight AI.  If other users choose to join opposing force, you could end up fighting other users.  This mode is completely different from Hell Let Loose and most current FPS as it doesn't require 100 players to enjoy.  It could combine the ARMA AI and Hell Let Loose mechanics for both systems.

 

Flight Sim - What we have today

 

Vehicle Sim - DCS but with vehicles

 

Real Time Strategy - This would be a cool, but could negatively impact overall server play, but if restricted to a smaller scale environment could also work.

 

Shared World / Different Engines - Virtual Battleground Server

 

The current multiplayer is just sharing events within a world and the system would require a cloud server system that could scale with the number of users.  The initial communication of events is sent to multiple ingest listeners which send messages to main central processing unit that determines geographic location.  The geographic locations can be scaled up or down according to how many players are within the unit.  A fast access database is used to determine which node is processing that geographic location a player is located in.  Any player within a certain distance based on game parameters would be sent to a messaging system that would relay it to those clients registered within the geographic location.  For an FPS, it may be a small region whereas a flight module would need updates from a greater distance.  It is essentially a publisher/subscriber model that takes place in a massive cloud environment.

 

The game engines only care about the events and position updates and receive this information from the virtual battleground server and updates their associated assets to represent movement between games.  By decoupling the battlespace movements from the game engine you can create specific engines for specific types of use cases. You don't necessarily need as highly detailed assets in a flight sim vs ground sim.  

 

In the future if Unreal Engine 5 proves out and storage streaming allows GPU to not require expensive VRAM, this system may become obsolete as the game engine could handle any level of detail automatically.  

 

 

 

 

[jwflowersii]

14 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

A map the size of the Caucuses with cities which all have fully modeled destructible buildings that you can go inside? Forget the PC power, there’s the labor required to model it too. You really need to look at what an FPS game is like out there before dreaming up stuff like this. 

See above - it's entirely possible and this lays out a path forward.  It's data that needs to be shared, not assets.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, jwflowersii said:

See above - it's entirely possible and this lays out a path forward.  It's data that needs to be shared, not assets.

Somebody would have to make the map. Who’s going to model thousands of buildings like that? 

1 hour ago, jwflowersii said:

At any point you can select an infantry unit within the campaign and control a squad or have friends all join the same squad.  You are inserted into the mission at a certain point in time (in battle or in preparation) and fight AI.  If other users choose to join opposing force, you could end up fighting other users. 

Then you and your friends would get annihilated by every other weapon in DCS as the bottom of the battle food chain. Why would this be fun?

Edited May 26, 2021 by SharpeXB

[jwflowersii]

9 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Somebody would have to make the map. Who’s going to model thousands of buildings like that? 

Then you and your friends would get annihilated by every other weapon in DCS as the bottom of the battle food chain. Why would this be fun?

 

Again, it's a large environment and many units not under attack.  The same can happen with artillery or even jets in Battlefield games or ARMA.  Shit happens.  And you can respawn.  What's the issue?

[SharpeXB]

51 minutes ago, jwflowersii said:

Again, it's a large environment and many units not under attack. 

The sheer size and level of detail and destructability needed for the map. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp. Yes there are aircraft in Battlefield but it’s an arcade style shooter and the map is tiny by comparison to DCS. The weapons are nerfed down to airsoft gun ballistics otherwise you’d be able to shoot across the whole map. 
The ARMA 3 map is 270 sq km. The DCS Syria map is 300,000 sq km A realistic flight sim game can’t be played on a map that’s only 16x16 km. And the ARMA map is huge by FPS standards. 

Edited May 26, 2021 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

52 minutes ago, jwflowersii said:

The same can happen with artillery or even jets in Battlefield games or ARMA.  Shit happens.  And you can respawn.  What's the issue?

Given the size of the map and the low number of players you’d likely never see the enemy infantry. If the game plays out like a realistic sim, you’d get realistic casualty rates. In WWII 70% of casualties were caused by artillery which wasn’t fun IRL and still less fun in a game where you’d get constantly zapped by opponents you couldn’t see or engage. Then you’ve got the problem that a game can’t populate itself with the tens of thousands of infantry which would be present in a real scenario. But the game is almost populated with a realistic number of attack aircraft and combat vehicles. The ratio of hunters to prey isn’t in your favor. Survival in numbers is all the infantry has got. All in all it doesn’t seem technically feasible or even fun at all. 

[jwflowersii]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

The sheer size and level of detail and destructability needed for the map. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp. Yes there are aircraft in Battlefield but it’s an arcade style shooter and the map is tiny by comparison to DCS. The weapons are nerfed down to airsoft gun ballistics otherwise you’d be able to shoot across the whole map. 
The ARMA 3 map is 270 sq km. The DCS Syria map is 300,000 sq km A realistic flight sim game can’t be played on a map that’s only 16x16 km. And the ARMA map is huge by FPS standards. 

 

I don't think you're understanding.  The FPS can still load only the portion it needs, but the data is sent back to central server than is sent to the flight sim using a different engine.  They're separate games using shared data sharing system.  You can restrict the areas if needed for the FPS side

[SharpeXB]

32 minutes ago, jwflowersii said:

I don't think you're understanding.  The FPS can still load only the portion it needs, but the data is sent back to central server than is sent to the flight sim using a different engine.  They're separate games using shared data sharing system.  You can restrict the areas if needed for the FPS side

The map would still need to be created. Loading huge maps piece by piece isn’t a problem, some flight sims have global sized maps. It’s having to model and create it. 

[Callsign112]

13 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The sheer size and level of detail and destructability needed for the map. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp. Yes there are aircraft in Battlefield but it’s an arcade style shooter and the map is tiny by comparison to DCS. The weapons are nerfed down to airsoft gun ballistics otherwise you’d be able to shoot across the whole map. 
The ARMA 3 map is 270 sq km. The DCS Syria map is 300,000 sq km A realistic flight sim game can’t be played on a map that’s only 16x16 km. And the ARMA map is huge by FPS standards. 

 

 

13 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Given the size of the map and the low number of players you’d likely never see the enemy infantry. If the game plays out like a realistic sim, you’d get realistic casualty rates. In WWII 70% of casualties were caused by artillery which wasn’t fun IRL and still less fun in a game where you’d get constantly zapped by opponents you couldn’t see or engage. Then you’ve got the problem that a game can’t populate itself with the tens of thousands of infantry which would be present in a real scenario. But the game is almost populated with a realistic number of attack aircraft and combat vehicles. The ratio of hunters to prey isn’t in your favor. Survival in numbers is all the infantry has got. All in all it doesn’t seem technically feasible or even fun at all. 

We already have maps in DCS that could be used. For WWII, Normandy and the Channel map are already being used with AI infantry, and there will soon be a 3rd map to add to that. But if their intention was to make a new map, and I am sure new maps are already on the drawing board, they would just do it like everything else in DCS. Look at the amount of time it took to release the F14.

 

I agree with @jwflowersii, I don't think a FPS is over the heads of ED. The point is, without an incentive from their military partners, they already stated they have no plans to make an FPS. I think the take-away for the OP to this thread is that while we likely wont see FPS infantry, we have Combined Arms that will be so much better if/when it gets further development. Using very capable AI infantry to populate a map to achieve the desired level of action eliminates your "ratio of hunters to prey" point.

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Normandy and the Channel map are already being used with AI infantry,

Of course they are. Honestly it’s not clear what you’re asking for. There’s already AI infantry in DCS. The OP was asking about first person shooter gameplay which is something entirely different. 

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

The point is, without an incentive from their military partners, they already stated they have no plans to make an FPS.

Good then we can stop discussing this on two separate threads…