Jump to content

Wishlist..


StevanJ
Go to solution Solved by StevanJ,

Recommended Posts

+1 for pretty much all, although I think my hope is that it just gets polished to the 2.7 level. It just feels like a relic of the olden DCS days... Trailer for it is still sick though, my favorite by far

  • Like 1

ASUS Tuf X570 Pro Wifi | Ryzen 7 5800X | 4x8gb 3200Mhz GSkill/Crucial | Gigabyte RTX 3060 TI | 1 500gb Samsung 860 EVO Boot SSD | 2 500gb HDD | 500gb Crucial NVMe (With DCS install) | EVGA 650BQ  |  Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + TM TF Rudder Pedals | TrackIr 5 | A handy dandy notepad ; )

F-5E | A-10CII | F-14 | FC3 | F-16 | F/A-18 | M2kC | MiG-19 | Sa342 | UH-1H | Ka-50 | L-39 | C-101 | P-51D | FW-190 D-9 | F-86 | Combined Arms | Mi-24P | Mi-8 | NS430 | Apache | "Christian" Eagle II ✝️ | Mirage F1

Primary Aircraft = Strong Red | Secondary Aircraft = Orange | Rarely Used = Yellow | Dead Aircraft/Not Bound = Purple | Recent Spike of Use = Teal/Cyan/Aquamarine/Whatever you want to call this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2021 at 8:32 PM, Mordant said:

+1 for pretty much all, although I think my hope is that it just gets polished to the 2.7 level. It just feels like a relic of the olden DCS days... Trailer for it is still sick though, my favorite by far

Never saw it, looked for it, had to post it here, indeed a great video ! Although old, still a must watch in the DCS sphere 😛 

 

Damn we've come a long way ! Hopefully one day CA gets the major overhaul it deserves !

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like a driver or commander seat/view so we don't have to rely on "isometric" view to navigate. Often vehicles will only have a gunner view, and driving around while looking through a toilet paper roll just doesn't work. Even the vehicles with a top mounted gun position have such a limited FOV it's hard to drive with. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

+1.

I enjoy using Isometric view a lot, because it helps add to the battlefield perspective.

I think most vehicles already have a drivers view with Lt Cnt + C, but they should definitely add a commanders view from both inside the Cupola and out. One could argue that they have already implemented the commanders view through binoculars, but it is not the same as being able view the game world from the commanders position unhindered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your point, but if your in SP mode there isn't really anyone to cheat. In MP, I think you can restrict external views. But I agree with you completely. They really should add the commanders view to the vehicles with the ability to open/close the hatch. I don't mind the monocular sight as much as I mind its use with WWII vehicles though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wychmaster said:

Okay, I am somehow to stupid to find the option to disable easy targetting in MP. Can somebody tell me where to find it or is it automatically disabled if the host has it disabled?

Options -> Special-> CA -> Uncheck "Compute Firing Solution". Re-save all your missions.

  • Thanks 1

'Shadow'

 

Everybody gotta be offended and take it personally now-a-days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 6 Minuten schrieb Callsign112:

Does this have any effect on the tracking mode in CA? My guess would be that it doesn't, but isn't that what it does, it computes a firing solution based on speed and distance?

No it doesn't affect the tracking mode. Just the calculation of the aim point when locking a target. The tracking mode is actually something that exists in real tanks while the other mode is just a dcs thing. Furthermore, tracking mode is not available in all vehicles, only to those that have such a system (as far as I know). The aim point is always available, even in WW2 tanks (except when disabled manually).


Edited by Wychmaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compute Firing Solution is a visual aid/cheat, which gives the ability to any unit you occupy to calculate a visual queue for lead, which is not how real life fire control systems work. Not to mention that a lot of the vehicles don't even have such.

There is an actual fire control system built into the vehicles, but it is not explained anywhere and non intuitive, if you have not had any experience with it or real life experience.

The fire control system in DCS is not enabled by default and it is also called "Auto Track". I made a video trying to explain how it works, be advised not the best video and it is long.
 

 

@Callsign112

I need to redo that video, with better sound, so you don't have to try and understand what I am saying over the game sound.


Edited by Shadow KT
  • Like 2

'Shadow'

 

Everybody gotta be offended and take it personally now-a-days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wychmaster said:

No it doesn't affect the tracking mode. Just the calculation of the aim point when locking a target. The tracking mode is actually something that exists in real tanks while the other mode is just a dcs thing. Furthermore, tracking mode is not available in all vehicles, only to those that have such a system (as far as I know). The aim point is always available, even in WW2 tanks (except when disabled manually).

 

So if I understand correctly, if you deselect "compute firing solution" in special options, it will affect the "Target Lock" mode, but not the "Auto Tracking" mode?

2 hours ago, Shadow KT said:

Compute Firing Solution is a visual aid/cheat, which gives the ability to any unit you occupy to calculate a visual queue for lead, which is not how real life fire control systems work. Not to mention that a lot of the vehicles don't even have such.

There is an actual fire control system built into the vehicles, but it is not explained anywhere and non intuitive, if you have not had any experience with it or real life experience.

The fire control system in DCS is not enabled by default and it is also called "Auto Track". I made a video trying to explain how it works, be advised not the best video and it is long.
 

 

@Callsign112

I need to redo that video, with better sound, so you don't have to try and understand what I am saying over the game sound.

 

Awesome video, very informative and thanks for sharing. BTW, this video doesn't show up when I search for it inside YouTube using the name as shown in the link you provided. Also, you mention in this video that you have others. I subscribed to your channel, but there are no videos listed there. Where can I find a link to the videos you put up on YouTube?

A question to both you and @Wychmaster regarding "Gun Stabilization". When activated, it not only stabilizes the gun from vertical (up/down motion) during fire/hull movement, but it also locks the turret position in relation to the hull as the tank moves. Do you know if this is how gun stabilization actually works? My question is in relation to how gun stabilization is modeled. It appears that the aiming point is being used to model gun stabilization. If this is how it actually works, then it makes sense. But if gun stabilization is meant to only prevent/limit/stabilize the up/down motion of the gun, then it would make sense that something other than the aim point be used to model it.

The more I use Combined Arms, the more interested I am in the module. It is in desperate need of attention, but the amount of work that has already gone into it is impressive to say the least.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Callsign112:

So if I understand correctly, if you deselect "compute firing solution" in special options, it will affect the "Target Lock" mode, but not the "Auto Tracking" mode?

correct

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Callsign112:

A question to both you and @Wychmaster regarding "Gun Stabilization". When activated, it not only stabilizes the gun from vertical (up/down motion) during fire/hull movement, but it also locks the turret position in relation to the hull as the tank moves. Do you know if this is how gun stabilization actually works? My question is in relation to how gun stabilization is modeled. It appears that the aiming point is being used to model gun stabilization. If this is how it actually works, then it makes sense. But if gun stabilization is meant to only prevent/limit/stabilize the up/down motion of the gun, then it would make sense that something other than the aim point be used to model it.

I am no tank expert, but as far as I know, the stabilization should be realistic. The gun of a modern tank should keep pointing into the same direction regardless of what the driver does. If this is actually a feature of the stabilization or an individual system, I don't know. Maybe someone else does. I gathered all my knowledge from the old tank sim "M1 tank platoon 2" 😄

 

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Callsign112:

The more I use Combined Arms, the more interested I am in the module. It is in desperate need of attention, but the amount of work that has already gone into it is impressive to say the least.

Yeah, its a pitty. I am under the impression that many people just use the module "the wrong way" because they don't know that there are actually a lot of really nice "hidden" features that make CA awesome. So they get to the conclusion that CA doesn't have enough to offer, because nobody shows them how to use it "the right way".

For example, just setting a route for your squad on the F10 map, turning on the auto-pilot and then firing at some targets while moving using stabalizer, tracking mode and mouse axis mode is just awesome. But most tutorials on youtube don't even mention those features... maybe we should create some tutorials...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2021 at 9:27 PM, Nealius said:

There are additionally issues with the Isometric view, one of them being cheating by ability to see above terrain or obstacles directly in front of the vehicle. The Binocular view also has the issue of being a toilet-paper roll monocular. 

it is and it isn’t. I’d often stand on top of the turret or sit on the TCs hatch while inching forward with Bono’s to see over the IV line without exposing the turret. Less than what we have today but you’d be surprised how often we would find targets that way, among others and pop up already laid on to shoot. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Paladin1cd said:

it is and it isn’t. I’d often stand on top of the turret or sit on the TCs hatch while inching forward with Bono’s to see over the IV line without exposing the turret. Less than what we have today but you’d be surprised how often we would find targets that way, among others and pop up already laid on to shoot. 

Well, you can use the binoculars for that, they actually have an elevated view position above the turret. You can definitely see above ridge lines, if not too steep, without exposing your vehicle. There is also no commander model, so they can't see you peeking.

 

22 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

So if I understand correctly, if you deselect "compute firing solution" in special options, it will affect the "Target Lock" mode, but not the "Auto Tracking" mode?

Awesome video, very informative and thanks for sharing. BTW, this video doesn't show up when I search for it inside YouTube using the name as shown in the link you provided. Also, you mention in this video that you have others. I subscribed to your channel, but there are no videos listed there. Where can I find a link to the videos you put up on YouTube?

A question to both you and @Wychmaster regarding "Gun Stabilization". When activated, it not only stabilizes the gun from vertical (up/down motion) during fire/hull movement, but it also locks the turret position in relation to the hull as the tank moves. Do you know if this is how gun stabilization actually works? My question is in relation to how gun stabilization is modeled. It appears that the aiming point is being used to model gun stabilization. If this is how it actually works, then it makes sense. But if gun stabilization is meant to only prevent/limit/stabilize the up/down motion of the gun, then it would make sense that something other than the aim point be used to model it.

The more I use Combined Arms, the more interested I am in the module. It is in desperate need of attention, but the amount of work that has already gone into it is impressive to say the least.

Well... I don't really make tutorials, more like one off videos when I am trying to explain or show something on the forums, that's why most of them are unlisted. 

As far as I know, today's guns are fully stabilized in all axis. Obviously, as long as it is within the elevation/depression limits and the turret traverse can keep up, but that shouldn't be a problem. 

Back in WW2, you could find tanks, which only had vertical stabilizer, which also only worked up to a certain speed, but most of the tanks had no stabilization what so ever.

  • Like 1

'Shadow'

 

Everybody gotta be offended and take it personally now-a-days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2021 at 3:24 PM, Wychmaster said:

correct

I am no tank expert, but as far as I know, the stabilization should be realistic. The gun of a modern tank should keep pointing into the same direction regardless of what the driver does. If this is actually a feature of the stabilization or an individual system, I don't know. Maybe someone else does. I gathered all my knowledge from the old tank sim "M1 tank platoon 2" 😄

 

Yeah, its a pitty. I am under the impression that many people just use the module "the wrong way" because they don't know that there are actually a lot of really nice "hidden" features that make CA awesome. So they get to the conclusion that CA doesn't have enough to offer, because nobody shows them how to use it "the right way".

For example, just setting a route for your squad on the F10 map, turning on the auto-pilot and then firing at some targets while moving using stabalizer, tracking mode and mouse axis mode is just awesome. But most tutorials on youtube don't even mention those features... maybe we should create some tutorials...

 

10 hours ago, Shadow KT said:

Well, you can use the binoculars for that, they actually have an elevated view position above the turret. You can definitely see above ridge lines, if not too steep, without exposing your vehicle. There is also no commander model, so they can't see you peeking.

 

Well... I don't really make tutorials, more like one off videos when I am trying to explain or show something on the forums, that's why most of them are unlisted. 

As far as I know, today's guns are fully stabilized in all axis. Obviously, as long as it is within the elevation/depression limits and the turret traverse can keep up, but that shouldn't be a problem. 

Back in WW2, you could find tanks, which only had vertical stabilizer, which also only worked up to a certain speed, but most of the tanks had no stabilization what so ever.

Well I went back and now realize why I thought it was awkward, I wasn't using the Num5 key to center the gun when the situation called for it. Like I said before, the vast majority of the times I have problems with Combined Arms, it is usually something I am doing, or not. Not saying there aren't lots of things that need fixing, but the Combined Arms module is definitely worth the price of admission. It wouldn't take much for this flight SIM (digital combat simulator) to show the other tanks games the right way to do it.

Things are super smooth in the gunners seat now.

RtShift + L = Tracking mode, or "Enter" key = Target Lock mode

V key = Gun Stabilization

MMB = Turret Axis mode

L key = Lase target

Num5 key = Cancel Gun Stabilization and center gun to hull

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

It wouldn't take much for this flight SIM (digital combat simulator) to show the other tanks games the right way to do it.

That's quite a bold statement, and one I'm going to disagree with, and there's several significant points that DCS falls over on, especially compared to a certain tank game currently in open alpha/vertical slice/tech demo.

13 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Things are super smooth in the gunners seat now.

In the video you showed though, Combined Arms' backwards suspension modelling (and I mean literally backwards, the running gear stays fixed, and the hull randomly bobs around) is still present, shaking the gun around, looking at the terrain the gun should more or less be as steady as a rock.

  • Like 2

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

That's quite a bold statement, and one I'm going to disagree with, and there's several significant points that DCS falls over on, especially compared to a certain tank game currently in open alpha/vertical slice/tech demo.

In the video you showed though, Combined Arms' backwards suspension modelling (and I mean literally backwards, the running gear stays fixed, and the hull randomly bobs around) is still present, shaking the gun around, looking at the terrain the gun should more or less be as steady as a rock.

@Northstar98, I should start by saying how much I enjoy following your posts and the contribution they make to this community.

You raise a very valid point in terms of areas where CA could be improved, and I couldn't agree more. But what you seem to have missed is that I'm not suggesting CA isn't in need of the fixes you mentioned, I am saying that the CA module is rock solid in terms of its concept/implementation and the potential it holds as one of the important cogs in the wheel of a digital combat simulator.

The gaming industry is huge, and the number of people interested in seeing immersive game play that can actually bring the game world to life is probably the largest part of that industry... and it's growing. I see the vertical slice/tech demo you mentioned as having quite a lot in common with ED/DCS World, and very much inline with the point I am trying to   make.

It wasn't but a few months ago that project was comprised of just a single developer, but look at the following he has generated. Anyone not sure just how popular real armor simulation can be should just follow his discord, I know because I have been following it for quite awhile. IMO, the entire ball of wax over there is the result of one thing and one thing only, realism! And that realism is enhanced by the attention to detail the DEV has put into what he does. Reminds me of another developer I've been following with the initials ED in its name. 

Now to answer your point and the issues you raise, you are focusing on the ground vehicles we have in CA today, and what I would suggest you focus on is the aircraft we have if you want a fair assessment of the level of attention to detail going into this project. CA as a module has received very little attention so far comparatively speaking. I say that loosely because you don't have to use it for very long to realize that even with the temporary limited focus it has received, the attention to detail is still visible at all levels, and in all aspects. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

@Northstar98, I should start by saying how much I enjoy following your posts and the contribution they make to this community.

Thank-you, I appreciate that, though sometimes 

45 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

You raise a very valid point in terms of areas where CA could be improved, and I couldn't agree more. But what you seem to have missed is that I'm not suggesting CA isn't in need of the fixes you mentioned, I am saying that the CA module is rock solid in terms of its concept/implementation and the potential it holds as one of the important cogs in the wheel of a digital combat simulator.

Here I more or less agree, apart from the implementation. I might be misinterpreting you here, so please feel free

While we do have high quality units that could well be suitable for a fully fledged tank simulator, there's several things on the implementation side that are definitely lacking.

I won't go into detail here, but it concerns things like: the physics, damage modelling, AI, fire-control systems, etc.

Even when you compare it to a certain other module, of a WWII flight sim, it kinda falls over on many aspects besides exterior model quality (though even then, there's no graphical representation of damage). Gunsights are mostly realistic, but they don't actually look like I'm looking through an actual sight (no 'glass effect' no depth of field, etc).

45 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Now to answer your point and the issues you raise, you are focusing on the ground vehicles we have in CA today, and what I would suggest you focus on is the aircraft we have if you want a fair assessment of the level of attention to detail going into this project. CA as a module has received very little attention so far comparatively speaking. I say that loosely because you don't have to use it for very long to realize that even with the temporary limited focus it has received, the attention to detail is still visible at all levels, and in all aspects. 

I mean, CA has been largely dead for ages, besides new vehicles or vehicles getting upgraded, I'm not really aware of any significant changes since it was introduced.

As for the attention to detail, apart from the 3D models of some vehicles (which still aren't without issues as far as graphical representation of damage, track animations and suspension in general), and maybe sights (though again, don't actually look like I'm looking through an actual sight), I'm failing to see where the attention to detail is.

  • Like 4

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I'm failing to see where the attention to detail is.

I agree, it would be great if they fixed the tanks reverse speeds that are all wrong (not fun to reverse when you play a tank in DCS, and your reverse speed is 9 kmph, when IRL it's 35 kmph...), tanks not able to hit anything while moving when irl they have >95% hit rate even on the move, or the way too large artillery dispersion (irl it's in tens of meters, not hundreds...)...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Northstar98, I am talking about the feature set of CA. Yes there is a very long list of things that need to be fixed/updated with ground vehicles/navy ships and the CA module itself, but considering the amount of development time devoted to improving CA as compared to the more pressing issue of plane/jet/helicopter modules, I for one appreciate the amount of work that has already gone into it.

I don't share your sentiment that CA has been dead for ages, but I get why you would say that. I mean, you would say that about the F18 if it had the same amount of development time devoted to it as the Yak 52. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

@Northstar98, I am talking about the feature set of CA. Yes there is a very long list of things that need to be fixed/updated with ground vehicles/navy ships and the CA module itself, but considering the amount of development time devoted to improving CA as compared to the more pressing issue of plane/jet/helicopter modules, I for one appreciate the amount of work that has already gone into it.

I don't share your sentiment that CA has been dead for ages, but I get why you would say that. I mean, you would say that about the F18 if it had the same amount of development time devoted to it as the Yak 52. 

 

The main problem about CA, they has not a dedicated and a permanent team with improve add funtionalities and features. From the release 2012, has maintan the same product.

Some years ago, Wags talk about vehicle interiors and ED team talk about Track/Week physics, vehicle crew, deployable infantry, smoke grenades, and more, but that "plans" has put on the frigde.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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