Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
16 hours ago, Evoman said:

According to this interview with ED ground troops are not planned but they are planing to make individual vehicles derivable like tanks.

 

See Questions #15 at 47:46 and  #29 at 1:08:56 in this interview.

 

An important distinction to be made is that he was talking about "playable ground troops". We already have infantry in DCS, we just need more types that are more capable. Personally, I think the infantry we already have are done quite well, and looking at the screen shots of infantry in the last news letter, they are exceptionally well done.

 

Imagine your tank platoon arriving at a staged battle area and enemy AI infantry units there are able to use cover as they engage the armor. This is in addition to any other player controlled vehicles (planes/jets/tanks/APC's) placed in the mission.

Posted (edited)

But again… why would this be fun? You’re just cannon fodder for all the other weapons.

 

BRRRRRRTT! 😮

Edited by SharpeXB

i9-14900KS | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | ASUS TUF GeForce RTX 4090 OC | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Posted
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

But again… why would this be fun? You’re just cannon fodder for all the other weapons.

 

BRRRRRRTT! 😮

 

Because not everyone is like you.  IT is your opinion and only yours.  You don't speak for everyone.

  • Like 2
Posted

I don't think level of detail of the gorund textures, buildings are good enough to play as infantry. Maps are too huge to play as infantry. I play arma for this kind of stuff for better immersion.

but if players prefers to play it as infantry, I would carry them to the AO with my chopper

FC3 | UH-1 | Mi-8 | A-10C II | F/A-18 | Ka-50 III | F-14 | F-16 | AH-64 Mi-24 | F-5 | F-15EF-4| Tornado

Persian Gulf | Nevada | Syria | NS-430 | Supercarrier // Wishlist: CH-53 | UH-60

 

Youtube

MS FFB2 - TM Warthog - CH Pro Pedals - Trackir 5

Posted
2 minutes ago, jwflowersii said:

Because not everyone is like you.  IT is your opinion and only yours.  You don't speak for everyone.

 

That is true and something we too often forget. I think there are some other unspoken arguments at play, one being that there are limited resources at ED, and people who do not care that much about FPS implicitly (rather than explicitly) say that they would prefer the developers expend their efforts on things they care more about.

 

Personally, I'm not too wild about FPS myself, as I think that units that vary in travelling speed by an order of magnitude can't well play together (which is what I and many people discussed - but others here are discussing DCS as solo FPS, another beast altogether). I think it would help if we made sure that we also spoke out loud the silent part that we think everyone knows, but too often don't. So, for the record: I think DCS could be a decent (but not good, CryTek and Unreal give much better experiences) FPS engine; for FPS play to me the arena is too big to be meaningful (wasted resources), and that in multiplayer radically different units don't mesh well for playing together (i.e. MP doesn't add to the experience, meaning that you might as well play solo). And yes, given the limited resources ED has I would prefer they invest that in improving air-based units or existing features like ME. And I do realize that this is based on my personal preferences 🙂

 

 

Posted
7 minutes ago, cfrag said:

 

That is true and something we too often forget. I think there are some other unspoken arguments at play, one being that there are limited resources at ED, and people who do not care that much about FPS implicitly (rather than explicitly) say that they would prefer the developers expend their efforts on things they care more about.

 

Personally, I'm not too wild about FPS myself, as I think that units that vary in travelling speed by an order of magnitude can't well play together (which is what I and many people discussed - but others here are discussing DCS as solo FPS, another beast altogether). I think it would help if we made sure that we also spoke out loud the silent part that we think everyone knows, but too often don't. So, for the record: I think DCS could be a decent (but not good, CryTek and Unreal give much better experiences) FPS engine; for FPS play to me the arena is too big to be meaningful (wasted resources), and that in multiplayer radically different units don't mesh well for playing together (i.e. MP doesn't add to the experience, meaning that you might as well play solo). And yes, given the limited resources ED has I would prefer they invest that in improving air-based units or existing features like ME. And I do realize that this is based on my personal preferences 🙂

 

 

 

Holy cow! Someone who gets it!

 

That being said, the one area in MP that a DCS OGS (On Ground Simulator) could do well in is multiplayer,  D&D style campaigns where missions are created week to week and units placed where needed. The ground guys spawn in, and go do their thing in their tiny corner of the map, while the pilots slug it out over the wider part of the battle space. A good example of this would be the GR Coffee Campaign, which I think lasted several weeks using both DCS and ArmA, and much of the ground fight for TFA was just over one airfield, which itself is fairly engaging in of itself, ground forces dug in like ticks trying to hold an airfield, and although allied forces can't use it, neither can the enemy, so I can imagine scenarios like that being very engaging for all involved. Obviously, a ten hour drive from A to B isn't fun for most people, although there are some strange people that like doing that, but who am I to tell them they're wrong (even though they are :P)

Posted

Besides being overpowered by every other weapon and system in the sim, infantry would also be outnumbered. I don’t imagine that it’s possible to include them in the numbers they’d have in reality. In a realistic scenario there would be thousands of them.
Looking at a random WWII battle (an armored battle), there were 270 ground troops present for every tank. So a scenario with even 6 tanks would need 1,600 ground troops. DCS doesn’t even accomplish that with AI let alone human players. So when playing as infantry you wouldn’t have the force of numbers needed to combat against other more powerful units. 

i9-14900KS | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | ASUS TUF GeForce RTX 4090 OC | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Posted
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Besides being overpowered by every other weapon and system in the sim, infantry would also be outnumbered. I don’t imagine that it’s possible to include them in the numbers they’d have in reality. In a realistic scenario there would be thousands of them.
Looking at a random WWII battle (an armored battle), there were 270 ground troops present for every tank. So a scenario with even 6 tanks would need 1,600 ground troops. DCS doesn’t even accomplish that with AI let alone human players. So when playing as infantry you wouldn’t have the force of numbers needed to combat against other more powerful units. 

 

Eh, Jets first have to actually find you, which is much harder than one would expect even with modern technology. Second, if you have access to MANPADS, the other guy won't have much warning that you've fired on him since most aircraft don't have an MWS, so unless someone fires a Fox1 or Fox3 at them, they won't know they've been locked let alone shot at.

 

So if you're scared of an A-10, Su25, Hind, or whatever coming for you, and you're able to hide from them, just bust this out:
FIM-92 Stinger [1200 × 857] : MissilePorn

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Tank50us said:

Eh, Jets first have to actually find you, which is much harder than one would expect even with modern technology. Second, if you have access to MANPADS, the other guy won't have much warning that you've fired on him since most aircraft don't have an MWS, so unless someone fires a Fox1 or Fox3 at them, they won't know they've been locked let alone shot at.

 

So if you're scared of an A-10, Su25, Hind, or whatever coming for you, and you're able to hide from them, just bust this out:

The infantry already has MANPADs not a big threat... they're easy to avoid simply by keeping altitude.

i9-14900KS | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | ASUS TUF GeForce RTX 4090 OC | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Posted
3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

 I don’t imagine

Your imagination is narrow mostly because you have no idea what you're talking about and you base your facts on the idea that sounds about right

 

44 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The infantry already has MANPADs not a big threat... they're easy to avoid simply by keeping altitude.

Stinger in theory can engage you at 12k feet wich is almost where everyone flies at. Also how are you going to engage infantry withoit braking that level without using expensive munitions meant for something completly else? Since you brought "realism" 

  • Like 2
Posted
52 minutes ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

Your imagination is narrow mostly because you have no idea what you're talking about and you base your facts on the idea that sounds about right

What I said was I don't imagine the game engine is capable of handling thousands of infantry on the ground. Hey I could be wrong but I don't see any DCS missions with more than a few infantry troops. The point is that in order to really handle infantry correctly their numbers would have to be proportionate to the other forces. Here's a relevant example for a modern battle, 73 Easting in the Gulf War. And this is an battle involving armored divisions. There were 4,000 infantry and 200-300 armored vehicles in the US forces, that's a ratio of 16 infantry per vehicle. So a DCS scenario with 20 armored vehicles would need to have 320 infantry as AI or players. A WWII battle like Arras in 1940, on the German side had 225 tanks and 10,000 infantry, a battle like that in DCS with 20 tanks would need 890 infantry in order to make things realistic. So in DCS which focuses on aircraft and vehicles, infantry are underrepresented in numbers which make them even weaker than they would be in reality. Can a game engine handle 1,000 AI infantry? Is there a point to playing MP infantry when there would be 20 or so human players and 900 AI? What's the appeal?

1 hour ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

Stinger in theory can engage you at 12k feet wich is almost where everyone flies at. Also how are you going to engage infantry withoit braking that level without using expensive munitions meant for something completly else? Since you brought "realism" 

Everyone doesn't fly at 12k feet when there are MANPAD threats, they fly at 13k 😉

  • Like 1

i9-14900KS | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | ASUS TUF GeForce RTX 4090 OC | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Posted
11 hours ago, ebabil said:

I don't think level of detail of the gorund textures, buildings are good enough to play as infantry. Maps are too huge to play as infantry. I play arma for this kind of stuff for better immersion.

but if players prefers to play it as infantry, I would carry them to the AO with my chopper

But we already are! We might not be playing as a foot soldier, but we are using tanks, APCs, Jeeps... so there is no difference in what you would see as a foot soldier, or a tank commander. All of the current maps are capable of supporting ground force action. Could effects like explosions be improved? Sure, but so could everything else in the SIM. I get your point and fully support it. If your interest in DCS World is piloting, then I think you came to the right place. Its just that while I really enjoy the planes(and believe me... soon to be jets too), I want to make better use of the DCS ground/naval war.

 

11 hours ago, cfrag said:

 

That is true and something we too often forget. I think there are some other unspoken arguments at play, one being that there are limited resources at ED, and people who do not care that much about FPS implicitly (rather than explicitly) say that they would prefer the developers expend their efforts on things they care more about.

 

Personally, I'm not too wild about FPS myself, as I think that units that vary in travelling speed by an order of magnitude can't well play together (which is what I and many people discussed - but others here are discussing DCS as solo FPS, another beast altogether). I think it would help if we made sure that we also spoke out loud the silent part that we think everyone knows, but too often don't. So, for the record: I think DCS could be a decent (but not good, CryTek and Unreal give much better experiences) FPS engine; for FPS play to me the arena is too big to be meaningful (wasted resources), and that in multiplayer radically different units don't mesh well for playing together (i.e. MP doesn't add to the experience, meaning that you might as well play solo). And yes, given the limited resources ED has I would prefer they invest that in improving air-based units or existing features like ME. And I do realize that this is based on my personal preferences 🙂

 

 

This is a well put together post. And again, I fully support those that are here because their interest is strictly flying, but while you want to see ED devote even more time percentage wise to "air-based units", I hope/want/expect that ED starts to put more into the other hugely neglected parts of the digital combat simulator.

 

One of the problems they are currently facing IMO is that they have too many loose ends, and that is causing a lot of displeasure in the community. One only has to take a step back to get a sense that the scope of work they are trying to accomplish is huge, which makes it easier to accept the prolonged development cycles often seen.

 

But my hope, or maybe my gut feeling on this is that the long time DCS users that have stuck with ED over the last decade or so are going to start seeing their patients pay-off. While there will always be another plane/jet to fill in as the next big announcement, the collection of planes/jets already in DCS World provides a decent selection, giving ED some breathing room to go back and update/fix/finish other important parts of DCS World. I know in their last announcement they stated that they are actually increasing the number of staff working on the avionics side, which is a healthy sign that things are progressing well and about to speed up. This can only have a knock-on effect for the other just as important areas of tech packs/maps and core game engine.

Posted
18 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

What I said was I don't imagine the game engine is capable of handling thousands of infantry on the ground. Hey I could be wrong but I don't see any DCS missions with more than a few infantry troops. The point is that in order to really handle infantry correctly their numbers would have to be proportionate to the other forces. Here's a relevant example for a modern battle, 73 Easting in the Gulf War. And this is an battle involving armored divisions. There were 4,000 infantry and 200-300 armored vehicles in the US forces, that's a ratio of 16 infantry per vehicle. So a DCS scenario with 20 armored vehicles would need to have 320 infantry as AI or players. A WWII battle like Arras in 1940, on the German side had 225 tanks and 10,000 infantry, a battle like that in DCS with 20 tanks would need 890 infantry in order to make things realistic. So in DCS which focuses on aircraft and vehicles, infantry are underrepresented in numbers which make them even weaker than they would be in reality. Can a game engine handle 1,000 AI infantry? Is there a point to playing MP infantry when there would be 20 or so human players and 900 AI? What's the appeal?

Everyone doesn't fly at 12k feet when there are MANPAD threats, they fly at 13k 😉

Were all 4000 infantry used in a single assault? Did all 300 armored vehicles charge in at the same time? This is going to be a limitation of DCS, or any other computer based game/SIM no matter what the scenario is.

 

How many planes were involved in the battle of Britain? Nearly 5000. How many planes do you expect any server on any platform is able to realistically hold?

 

Does this imply that simulating air-to-air combat isn't feasible, that the map doesn't support it, or that ED should pack-up and close shop? I don't think so, because even having just 20 planes on each side is representative of the historical event.

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Were all 4000 infantry used in a single assault? Did all 300 armored vehicles charge in at the same time?

My point is about relative numbers not the total forces. 

i9-14900KS | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | ASUS TUF GeForce RTX 4090 OC | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Posted
23 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

My point is about relative numbers not the total forces. 

That's not answering the question, and I thought your point was about the number of troops it would take to accurately simulate a battle?

Posted
6 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

That's not answering the question, and I thought your point was about the number of troops it would take to accurately simulate a battle?

No it’s the strength of infantry relative to the other, already more powerful, units in the game. 
 

And both these threads are veering off topic. They both ask for first person shooter gameplay which ED already said they aren’t doing. 

i9-14900KS | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | ASUS TUF GeForce RTX 4090 OC | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Posted
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

What I said was I don't imagine the game engine is capable of handling thousands of infantry on the ground. Hey I could be wrong but I don't see any DCS missions with more than a few infantry troops. The point is that in order to really handle infantry correctly their numbers would have to be proportionate to the other forces. Here's a relevant example for a modern battle, 73 Easting in the Gulf War. And this is an battle involving armored divisions. There were 4,000 infantry and 200-300 armored vehicles in the US forces, that's a ratio of 16 infantry per vehicle. So a DCS scenario with 20 armored vehicles would need to have 320 infantry as AI or players. A WWII battle like Arras in 1940, on the German side had 225 tanks and 10,000 infantry, a battle like that in DCS with 20 tanks would need 890 infantry in order to make things realistic. So in DCS which focuses on aircraft and vehicles, infantry are underrepresented in numbers which make them even weaker than they would be in reality. Can a game engine handle 1,000 AI infantry? Is there a point to playing MP infantry when there would be 20 or so human players and 900 AI? What's the appeal?

Everyone doesn't fly at 12k feet when there are MANPAD threats, they fly at 13k 😉

Where did you come up with those numbers?

Posted
33 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

No it’s the strength of infantry relative to the other, already more powerful, units in the game. 
 

And both these threads are veering off topic. They both ask for first person shooter gameplay which ED already said they aren’t doing. 

My response was in answer to your position that a FPS couldn't be done, so I am following you on topic.

Posted

The problem we have here is a lack of imagination.  The post I shared isn't necessarily developed by ED.  The only thing that needs developed is the backend data sharing system between game engines all driven off a dynamic ongoing multiplayer campaign.  As infantry, you could just hop in a battle with your friends as a squad or even control a squad that you're a part of.  You don't need a 100 players in multiplayer to play against AI.  Imagine a game such as ARMA linked into the shared data stream that shares unit movements to DCS.  If you die because a jet blows you to smithereens, that's war and happens all the time.  The great thing is you can just respawn unlike real life.  You just need to think outside the box and it's entirely possible to join different game engines in a shared world.  All you need is data on position and events to be shared and each game can handle the associated assets independently. 

 

The biggest investment is the shared data stream and they working on a dynamic campaign engine.  Ideally, that's a modular component that could be split out to a central server running in the cloud.  A message based system sends the events and data to any game or module that wants to participate.  For scale, there are ways to handle that as well.  Is it easy, hell no, but with enough thought and design, I believe it's possible.  A player can dream.

  • Like 1
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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