Infantry - Combined Arms

[Callsign112]

6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

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. 

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

I think my point has been clear.

 

While I agree with the OP in that an FPS in DCS is doable, I am pointing out to the OP in support of his request for a more complete digital combat simulator that while we are not likely going to see playable infantry, there is hope that we will see much improved AI infantry that will make Combined Arms and DCS World a much more enjoyable experience for those that are looking for something more then just flying.

 

I have also understood your point that you don't think a FPS is doable, to which I completely disagree.

[SharpeXB]

1 minute ago, Callsign112 said:

While I agree with the OP in that an FPS in DCS is doable,

But ED just said they aren’t going to do one so why keep posting?

[Callsign112]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

But ED just said they aren’t going to do one so why keep posting?

I guess I was just assuming that you normally have conversations with other people instead of just yourself. If your own posts are not invitations for comments from the community, then my bad...

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

while we are not likely going to see playable infantry, there is hope that we will see much improved AI infantry that will make Combined Arms and DCS World a much more enjoyable experience for those that are looking for something more then just flying.

Why is there hope and why does AI infantry need “improving”?
 

Honestly DCS really is a combat flight simulation with one rather poorly done ground combat module. Flying is the worthwhile thing to do here. 

[Callsign112]

9 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Why is there hope and why does AI infantry need “improving”?
 

Honestly DCS really is a combat flight simulation with one rather poorly done ground combat module. Flying is the worthwhile thing to do here. 

There is hope because ED has made several announcements/comments that confirms its commitment to a digital combat simulator. It needs improving because the current Combined Arms/Infantry are probably at about the same level of development as the P51 was a couple of updates after its initial release.

 

Infantry are unable to reload their weapons. Infantry attack logic is broken if an enemy unit gets behind them. Infantry are unable to use cover while engaging an enemy. Infantry are only able to use a standing position. The list could go on, but you get my point.

 

In the linked video, the 1st scene shows a US soldier after he has used seven 8 round clips. His body sways, and his eyes move, but that is about it.

The 2nd scene shows how an infantry's attack command gets broken by simply driving behind it.

The 3rd scene shows the same thing, but with 5 soldiers. After the first pass behind, 2 of the 5 are still actually trying to find/aim at me. But they too go blank after I slowly get behind them.

The 4th scene shows how the attack command for vehicles is much more robust. No matter how far I drive, or in what direction, the AI vehicle continues to attack me when ever I enter its line of site. And this includes the AI changing its line of site to find me as I change locations on the map.

 

But in terms of map textures for things like grass/trees/buildings, it is more then suitable for ground forces in its present state. They could certainly improve the graphics/sound effects of explosions to bring the battle field more to life, but no need for better grass at this point. Have a look at the explosions in PostScriptum or Gunner Heat PC to get a better idea of what I mean.

 

But by updating ground vehicles so that they are closer to their high fidelity air counter parts, and by updating the AI unit/infantry logic and functionality, real players in vehicles/planes/jets could reach the next level of immersive combat simulation.

 

 

[SharpeXB]

22 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

There is hope because ED has made several announcements/comments that confirms its commitment to a digital combat simulator. 

Yes but this sim is all oriented towards flight. Such detail in the infantry troops is just a waste of effort IMO. They are very well done from the perspective of a flight simulator but we don’t need to see reload animations or anything like that. 
I doubt CA is a big seller compared to the aircraft modules. There are just so many other more important things ED struggles to get done.

[Callsign112]

53 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Yes but this sim is all oriented towards flight. Such detail in the infantry troops is just a waste of effort IMO. They are very well done from the perspective of a flight simulator but we don’t need to see reload animations or anything like that. 
I doubt CA is a big seller compared to the aircraft modules. There are just so many other more important things ED struggles to get done.

I appreciate and respect your opinion. You are a pilot through and through, and I think that is great. I also get that the main market for ED at the moment revolves essentially around aircraft, but that might have more to do with history and how DCS World got started, because contrary to your belief, DCS World definitely has aspirations of being more than a flight simulator. The products title is "Digital Combat Simulator". 

 

It's not just about seeing a reload animation, its about the fact that after using 7 clips, an infantry unit still on the field is left just standing there regardless of what is happening around it. If we want more immersive action, the unit should have a way to get to/find/ resupply himself. Even if that means picking up another weapon like in other game formats.

 

I don't know how CA fairs in terms of unit sales for ED, but what I can tell you is if you have never used it, you are missing a major part of the DCS World experience, unless all you want to do is look out from a canopy.

 

But imagine what your experience would be like today in 2021 if they didn't make any of the changes made to DCS World over the last several years. If all they updated was the instrument panel of your plane/jet, do you think you would be enjoying the experience as much? Because everything beyond the canopy is basically another element of the SIM. The Normandy and Channel maps are made to be enjoyed both from the air and on the ground. By improving the ground war, ED is making a more immersive and target rich environment for pilots and tankers alike.

[SharpeXB]

28 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I also get that the main market for ED at the moment revolves essentially around aircraft, but that might have more to do with history and how DCS World got started, because contrary to your belief, DCS World definitely has aspirations of being more than a flight simulator. The products title is "Digital Combat Simulator". 

The name is “combat simulator” but it has focused on aircraft since it’s beginnings as “Lock On” as far as I know. It’s not just been about aircraft “at the moment” but “always”

EDs commercial/military customers all seem to be oriented around its aircraft simulations as well. Combined Arms is an odd fit with a flight sim, it’s a product of creating a rather high quality level of ground activity as an environment for the aircraft, especially ground attack which were the first modules, Black Shark and the A-10C

I don’t think it’s realistic to expect a detailed ground simulation in the same game as flight. And there have never been combat vehicles modeled with the same fidelity as the aircraft in DCS. Flight simulation is very difficult and specific for a sim, it’s a danger for the Devs to become mis-focused and try to make the game become everything for everyone.  

[Svsmokey]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Flight simulation is very difficult and specific for a sim, it’s a danger for the Devs to become mis-focused and try to make the game become everything for everyone.  

...meaning good for no one ! These threads are a waste of time as their proponents are incapable of understanding finite resources , whether in terms of development effort , or what a pc can handle . "It would be possible/simple/easy to"- says the guy who never wrote a program .

[Callsign112]

58 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The name is “combat simulator” but it has focused on aircraft since it’s beginnings as “Lock On” as far as I know. It’s not just been about aircraft “at the moment” but “always”

EDs commercial/military customers all seem to be oriented around its aircraft simulations as well. Combined Arms is an odd fit with a flight sim, it’s a product of creating a rather high quality level of ground activity as an environment for the aircraft, especially ground attack which were the first modules, Black Shark and the A-10C

I don’t think it’s realistic to expect a detailed ground simulation in the same game as flight. And there have never been combat vehicles modeled with the same fidelity as the aircraft in DCS. Flight simulation is very difficult and specific for a sim, it’s a danger for the Devs to become mis-focused and try to make the game become everything for everyone.  

If you go back and read the post of mine that you were responding to, the bold text at the top is exactly what I suggested.

 

The red text represents a misconception. DCS World is not just a flight SIM. The fact that you see CA as poorly done, and an odd fit with a flight SIM is unfortunate. In my view, CA represents one of the most dynamic features of DCS World. I would suggest that you read the product description of CA on ED's website. Your view that CA only works in connection with the flight SIM part of DCS World is incorrect. CA arms can also stand on its own as an independent product. So the request to improve it shouldn't be seen as a threat to the pilot community here. ED has just recently announced that they are increasing support for work on its aviation products, so any support/development that goes into other aspects of DCS World will take nothing away from progress on the flight SIM part.

 

The purple text goes counter to what ED itself has already announced. You may have missed one of the more recent news letters where it was mentioned, but improved vehicles are supposedly being worked on currently.  

 

Bringing improvements to AI logic and functionality will not only benefit ground forces, but it will go a long way to help improve the situation for pilots as well. There are hundreds of threads on this forum that talk about how AI aircraft are too good, not good enough, or don't react properly. Improving the in-game AI will make for better dogfights, which I think the larger pilot community would benefit from.

 

In the linked video below, I show another example of how simple user interaction affects AI behavior. Placing 5 individual infantry units so that they are facing away from an approaching enemy unit causes some of the units to go blank. If you try this exercise with a single infantry unit, it works perfect as long as you don't drive behind it. In the video you see only 2 of the 5 soldiers turn to face the enemy correctly. And after a very brief period, one of the two also goes blank. You can also affect AI behavior further by changing unit spacing.

 

The point to this is that while DCS infantry are actually done quite well, there are a bunch of very easily fixable things that could be done to make using them a LOT better. These type of fixes would have little to no hit on memory overhead requirements, but would have a huge impact on their usability. So in keeping with the OP's original request, he may not be able to play the foot soldier, but his CA experience is bound to improve when he is able to defend/attack with more capable Infantry AI units from his command vehicle.

 

 

1 hour ago, Svsmokey said:

...meaning good for no one ! These threads are a waste of time as their proponents are incapable of understanding finite resources , whether in terms of development effort , or what a pc can handle . "It would be possible/simple/easy to"- says the guy who never wrote a program .

Says the guy that never wrote a program.

[Svsmokey]

45 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

 

Says the guy that never wrote a program.

Certainly not on the scale of DCS , or anywhere near , but I've written several , in fact . 

"Very easily fixable" indeed...

Edited May 27, 2021 by Svsmokey

[Callsign112]

14 minutes ago, Svsmokey said:

Certainly not on the scale of DCS , or anywhere near , but I've written several , in fact . 

"Very easily fixable" indeed...

 

I don't know what you are referring to, but my use of the text you are quoting was in reference to the way the AI logic gets broken just by driving behind an infantry unit. In the grand scheme of things, this shouldn't represent any major hurdles for the Dev team. There is actually a bigger chance that this is just part of an incomplete feature then a bug.

 

But you arrived quoting this "Flight simulation is very difficult and specific for a sim, it’s a danger for the Devs to become mis-focused and try to make the game become everything for everyone."

 

I guess I am just surprised that you have a background in coding, but you used the above quote to criticize me. Can you explain the "danger" part, and are you aware that Combined Arms is actually a thing?

 

Its not your misplaced criticisms that bother me, it is the fact that you seem to be agreeing with someone posting things that run counter to what ED itself has announced. 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

The red text represents a misconception. DCS World is not just a flight SIM.

Look at all the modules available for the game, except one. What do you see?

 

The question was already answered on the first page of this thread. You can stop now…

On 3/25/2021 at 10:49 AM, Silver_Dragon said:

ED talked some time ago with can build a FPS only if some of Military clients has interest on them.

 

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Callsign112]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Look at all the modules available for the game, except one. What do you see?

I see a digital combat simulator that is heavily invested in the avionics world. This likely has to do with how DCS got its start.

[SharpeXB]

21 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I see a digital combat simulator that is heavily invested in the avionics world. This likely has to do with how DCS got its start.

And how it still is today. Combined Arms seems to be a one time experiment. Sure I suppose it’s possible that there could be high fidelity combat vehicle modules but they’ve never been done. The vehicles in CA are far far below the standards of the aircraft. There is no interior modeled from what I see. It’s like World of Tanks played in 3rd person. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Callsign112]

22 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The question was already answered on the first page of this thread. You can stop now…

 

 

 

Yes we are all aware of that fact. My responses are in answer to your comments. So if you don't want a response, then I am not requesting you to comment.

[Svsmokey]

36 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I don't know what you are referring to, but my use of the text you are quoting was in reference to the way the AI logic gets broken just by driving behind an infantry unit. In the grand scheme of things, this shouldn't represent any major hurdles for the Dev team. There is actually a bigger chance that this is just part of an incomplete feature then a bug.

 

But you arrived quoting this "Flight simulation is very difficult and specific for a sim, it’s a danger for the Devs to become mis-focused and try to make the game become everything for everyone."

 

I guess I am just surprised that you have a background in coding, but you used the above quote to criticize me. Can you explain the "danger" part, and are you aware that Combined Arms is actually a thing?

 

Its not your misplaced criticisms that bother me, it is the fact that you seem to be agreeing with someone posting things that run counter to what ED itself has announced. 

I could , but i won't waste the time .

Edited May 27, 2021 by Svsmokey

[Callsign112]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

And how it still is today. Combined Arms seems to be a one time experiment. Sure I suppose it’s possible that there could be high fidelity combat vehicle modules but they’ve never been done. The vehicles in CA are far far below the standards of the aircraft. There is no interior modeled from what I see. It’s like World of Tanks played in 3rd person. 

 

Before I start let me just say, you asked,... so I am just responding!

 

I don't know if you have CA, its hard to tell, but my guess is you don't. According to the google search I did, CA was released in 2012 and has been updated regularly through several patches. The last major update was about a month ago.

 

And yes, you are right, the ground force vehicles are currently far below the standards of the in-game aircraft. That would seem to be a logical explanation for all the requests to have them improved.

 

And I agree with you, the vehicles are very far from representing the quality of product that ED has come to be know for. IMO, it has to do with the scale of the work they are attempting to do. DCS World is so much bigger then the cockpit of a jet.

 

I don't actually own any jets yet, but recently purchased the Super Carrier. And I have to tell you, there is no doubt in my mind that the value of the Super Carrier will increase dramatically once I purchase the F18, but I have spent several hours with the module enjoying the quality of naval battles I am able to create, that the module has already paid for itself without moving a rudder pedal.

 

I am very happy with ED and its DCS World platform, mostly because of what it is trying to achieve.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

The purple text goes counter to what ED itself has already announced. You may have missed one of the more recent news letters where it was mentioned, but improved vehicles are supposedly being worked on currently.  

 

ED actually has no plans to build High fidelity vehicules and Wags and others has talk a FPS infantry simulations has not planned (only if a private / Military request them).

 

Meanwhile, ED has plans to improve CA, but dont expected modules.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[Callsign112]

1 minute ago, Silver_Dragon said:

 

ED actually has no plans to build High fidelity vehicules and Wags and others has talk a FPS infantry simulations has not planned (only if a private / Military request them).

Maybe high fidelity is the wrong term when compared to the planes, but in a video you linked, it was stated that improved vehicles were being worked on. It was also clear from the video that there are no plans for a FPS style game.

[SharpeXB]

11 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

 

I don't know if you have CA, its hard to tell, but my guess is you don't.

I own it but I’ve never used it. Honestly it looks pretty horrible. The interface of the game is the dull F10 map. I’m not a fan of RTS games but at least those have a nice 3D interface where you can pan and zoom over the battlefield seeing the actual game action. Where CA doesn’t seem to fit in Digital Combat Simulator is that it’s not actually a simulator. It’s a 3rd person game, simulators by definition are first person, you don’t control a real tank by hovering over it. A sim tank would have a modeled interior and systems with crew positions etc. Maybe those improvements could include “Flaming Cliffs” level vehicles with systems and interiors. And a better interface. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Callsign112]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

I own it but I’ve never used it. Honestly it looks pretty horrible. The interface of the game is the dull F10 map. I’m not a fan of RTS games but at least those have a nice 3D interface where you can pan and zoom over the battlefield seeing the actual game action. Where CA doesn’t seem to fit in Digital Combat Simulator is that it’s not actually a simulator. It’s a 3rd person game, simulators by definition are first person, you don’t control a real tank by hovering over it. A sim tank would have a modeled interior and systems with crew positions etc. 

And that is what CA allows you to do. You can control the tank as either the driver, or the gunner. And Combined Arms is just one module, I think the digital combat simulator is referring to DCS World as a whole.

[Silver_Dragon]

And that is what CA allows you to do. You can control the tank as either the driver, or the gunner. And Combined Arms is just one module, I think the digital combat simulator is referring to DCS World as a whole.

CA coming from a UK Army JTAC profesional module from Ka-50\A-10C times.

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

Maybe high fidelity is the wrong term when compared to the planes, but in a video you linked, it was stated that improved vehicles were being worked on. It was also clear from the video that there are no plans for a FPS style game.

When ED confirm that "improvements" , we can start to talk about them. I don't expect crew able inertior cockpits a advanced systems meanwhile ED don't build a realistic land module (only a remark, ED has build sea modules but has locked and not can build own sea modules with cockpit, weapons and Systems).

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

[Callsign112]

Just now, Silver_Dragon said:

CA coming from a UK Army JTAC profesional module from Ka-50\A-10C times.

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk
 

That is what I like about CA so much, it allows you to play RTS, first person armor, or control units from a plane. You can also as you are suggesting take on different roles including game master where you have control over both coalitions. This adds a lot of functionality especially if you are into creating your own mission content.

[SharpeXB]

25 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

And that is what CA allows you to do. You can control the tank as either the driver, or the gunner. And Combined Arms is just one module, I think the digital combat simulator is referring to DCS World as a whole.

A simulator game is about, well simulating. Whether it’s truck driving or flying the basic interface would have to be first person, in the cockpit or drivers seat. That’s how reality is. 3rd person games are “arcade” games in sim-speak. Besides giving you the realistic interface, first person also enforces a realistic view especially from something like an armored vehicle. Using its turrets, sights or exposing yourself from the cupola. Third person allows an unrealistic view of your surroundings. The requirement for a game to be a sim isn’t necessary complexity, the simplified FC3 planes are still sims. But it’s gotta be a cockpit view.