Armor (Tank) modules revisited

[Devil 505]

I know the topic has been brought up in the past, but I thought I would reignite it again with DCS WW2 ramping up.  ED has said in recent past that their military customers had come to them asking if it was possible to create a high fidelity armor module like their aircraft.  To the best of my recollection, they said it was being taken under advisement and they would like to work on one.  YEARS ago they were talking about an M1A but it went cold and dark, never to be spoken about again.

I think the best intro into tanks would be WW2 with so many variations being available for the time periods we have for our current maps.  The video below shows just how fun it could be in DCS.  I know this is IL2's rendition of tank battles, but for the accuracy and realism I am looking for, no one can do it better than ED in my own opinion.  With the announcement of a cargo plane coming, Wags video this week on the free draw tool in the mission editor,  and the Dynamic Campaign getting closer to release it only seems logical we will want armor modules.  Also the announcement today of the human motion model with intelligent behavior is another massive red flag of what is coming down the road.  What are your opinions/thoughts?  

 

The poll above is to get an idea of who would be interested in taking the fight to the ground.  This is Digital Combat Simulator after all.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2021 by Devil 505
Forgot to add video

[Northstar98]

Solid yes from me, though there would be a fair amount of work ahead.

If the other WW2 flight sim can do it, then I don't see why we can't, even if it mandated a dedicated map with a more confined area (current maps certainly get close, but there's still a bit of stuff missing to be on par with the other one).

Edited October 15, 2021 by Northstar98

[Mogster]

Realise this sounds negative but I’d rather the focus remained on aircraft. Development pace is already slow enough and there’s little enough focus (none?) as is.

[Callsign112]

I haven't even looked at a cockpit in the past 2 weeks not because of a lack of interest, but because I started playing around with armored vehicles in the ME again. There is so much potential with CA, and that isn't saying anything negative about the really amazing logic/features that are already there. The more time I spend with it, the more I am pleasantly surprised at just how much work ED has already put into the ground war part of DCS.

I am not really good with the ME so progress has been slow, but I have been experimenting the past two weeks setting up armored battle missions with AI planes hammering both sides. A more capable infantry would definitely be welcome.

For both the WWII and helicopter crowd that get down low into the map detail, it is going to be a game changer IMO!

So yeah, what ever you do Eagle Dynamics don't stop developing planes/jets/helicopters/maps, but keep the tech packs and ground war coming!   

[StevanJ]

19 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

I know the topic has been brought up in the past, but I thought I would reignite it again with DCS WW2 ramping up.  ED has said in recent past that their military customers had come to them asking if it was possible to create a high fidelity armor module like their aircraft.  To the best of my recollection, they said it was being taken under advisement and they would like to work on one.  YEARS ago they were talking about an M1A but it went cold and dark, never to be spoken about again.

I think the best intro into tanks would be WW2 with so many variations being available for the time periods we have for our current maps.  The video below shows just how fun it could be in DCS.  I know this is IL2's rendition of tank battles, but for the accuracy and realism I am looking for, no one can do it better than ED in my own opinion.  With the announcement of a cargo plane coming, Wags video this week on the free draw tool in the mission editor,  and the Dynamic Campaign getting closer to release it only seems logical we will want armor modules.  Also the announcement today of the human motion model with intelligent behavior is another massive red flag of what is coming down the road.  What are your opinions/thoughts?  

 

The poll above is to get an idea of who would be interested in taking the fight to the ground.  This is Digital Combat Simulator after all.

 

 

 

Grim reapers sure have alot of fun..

[StevanJ]

13 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

Looking at how much fun wingman and me have as a vehicle crew in Squad, combined with how much we love DCS: high fidelity tank module would be a no-brainer. ED gib StuG-III G Schürze rn!

A good range of those tank also would not only be WWII relevant. Looking at AIW or 6DW for example, lots of WWII gear there.

Land based modules would actually open DCS for 3rd party developers that did not specialize in aircraft. So this would not necessarily slow down anything else.

Whats that game like? Its been on my wishlist for a long time..

[Callsign112]

1 hour ago, Desert Fox said:

Looking at how much fun wingman and me have as a vehicle crew in Squad, combined with how much we love DCS: high fidelity tank module would be a no-brainer. ED gib StuG-III G Schürze rn!

A good range of those tank also would not only be WWII relevant. Looking at AIW or 6DW for example, lots of WWII gear there.

Land based modules would actually open DCS for 3rd party developers that did not specialize in aircraft. So this would not necessarily slow down anything else.

+1

[MAXsenna]

Realise this sounds negative but I’d rather the focus remained on aircraft. Development pace is already slow enough and there’s little enough focus (none?) as is.

Pretty sure a dedicated brand new tank department wouldn't interfere with any airframe.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[lmp]

The problem is, a tank module at this point would make very little sense unless ED greatly expanded the ground combat aspects of DCS. We would need new maps, AI capabilities, weapon and damage modeling... the list goes on. So the argument that it would occupy ED resources is valid, regardless of who made the actual tanks. And even if ED went to all this trouble, how much would the air combat and ground combat players actually interact once the novelty wore off? In the end tanks are just targets for attack aircraft with very limited abilities to fight back.

IMHO the class of ground units that would make far more sense in DCS are (both modern and WW2 era) air defense units. The limitations of ground combat simulation in DCS would be largely irrelevant and they would by design interact with the existing modules and playerbase.

[MAXsenna]

The problem is, a tank module at this point would make very little sense unless ED greatly expanded the ground combat aspects of DCS. We would need new maps, AI capabilities, weapon and damage modeling... the list goes on. So the argument that it would occupy ED resources is valid, regardless of who made the actual tanks. And even if ED went to all this trouble, how much would the air combat and ground combat players actually interact once the novelty wore off? In the end tanks are just targets for attack aircraft with very limited abilities to fight back.
IMHO the class of ground units that would make far more sense in DCS are (both modern and WW2 era) air defense units. The limitations of ground combat simulation in DCS would be largely irrelevant and they would by design interact with the existing modules and playerbase.

Oh, I agree with a lot of what you write. But isn't it all an incentive for ED to have a dedicated "ground" team then?
I'm pretty sure this could benefit both ground/helicopters and fast flyers.
DCS World. That's the name of the game. I'm pretty sure this will come later anyway, so why not sooner. A lot of the fast flyers have been asking for a better ground war anyway.
I just can't see any negative implementations of this. In a certain other WWII SIM, it seems like a lot of fun to hide in the trees from fighters.
Correctly done in whatever time period, I will think this could work.
My glass is always full, enjoy your Saturday, cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Mogster]

Really it’s another of those polls where people are going to vote yes… because there’s no reason not to…

A Better poll would be to ask if the community would prefer ground combat modules or …. something else…. 

[MAXsenna]

ED is working on all of this already and for quite some time: some ground AI improvements coming soon (insurgent infantry already got new behavior) and more will likely come with dynamic campaign later. WWII aircraft damage model is live already with modern jets following, ground unit damage models are planned to be done next. Current gen maps like Syria or Channel map definitely have enough detail for vehicle combat.
See zero reason why an additional 3rd party should or could not make a high fidelity vehicle reality in 3-5 years. It's not like such would be started tomorrow and be ready in two weeks. This is a realistic time frame i think when planning would start this year. Prerequisites would be live in DCS 3.5 at this time.
ED themselves quite obviously would not have the additional capacity for such, no need to argue here.

!!!!!!
I was searching for something, and because I'm lazy, I ended up with watching a six year old video. I have actually, watched that video before, probably about three years ago. It didn't look too dated at that time. But today !!!
DCS is a living thing, that for sure!!!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Callsign112]

28 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

Exactly. DCS in 2025 will be a completely different beast than what we got today. So much amazing stuff and fundamental game changers "right at the door step" for the next two years or so to be released. Multi-threading/Vulkan for example will change performance drastically and open the door for a lot of features yet to be too demanding. Especially AI will profit from this. Also server performance/possible player count, which would be important for reasonable MP ground play. Also things like sonar for naval gameplay will become more likely due to the high performance cost they come with.

If ED is clever, they settle the ground right now to expand into ground and naval gameplay established until 2030. Their traditional markets start to be fed, at some point people won't buy their 25th jet or 15th warbird anymore. (Most bite off too much with a second one already tbh ). That's why we have the year of helicopters: fixed wing is quite saturated by now. Flight sims is a niche (albeit being quite popular right now) where you can not generate new customers out of thin air and without limits. At some point you've got to jump off the plate, not just look beyond it's limits.

Ground and naval is a whole new customer group to be served (overlapping with aviationists naturally to some excess ofc) and the logical next step apart from new maps and spin-offs like the IADS module or other meta-gaming. Naval is something i see further in the future since the prerequisites are not as set as with ground. But tanks... yes, absolutely realistic within a few years. Remind me 2025 if you read this in the future

Couldn't agree with this more because it pretty much describes me. I came to DCS looking for WWII Tanks, and stayed because of the war birds. I now own almost all of the WWII planes. And with the recent news of improved deck crew/infantry, it sounds like I will be getting into jets and helicopters sooner than originally panned. So I think it is in every ones best interest that ED works at making this the one-stop shop, because you may come for one thing and find you quite like something else just as much.

As an example, my interest is really WWII, but lately I have been exploring the 70 or so post WWII armored vehicles/MRLS/SAM systems in the game and am finding my interests expanding rapidly.

[Devil 505]

21 hours ago, Mogster said:

Really it’s another of those polls where people are going to vote yes… because there’s no reason not to…

A Better poll would be to ask if the community would prefer ground combat modules or …. something else…. 

I do not necessarily disagree with you on this, however, it is such an open ended question, I was wanting to see who was specifically interested in Tanks/Armor.  Had I left it the way you suggested, it would have turned into one of those polls that went off on a tangent of 1000 different things people want, then an argument kicks off and ED has to close the thread.  

More or less, the reactions I have seen so far are exactly how I feel.  Seems logical this will be a progressive step in the future.  The only thing a slightly disagree with that I see often in these threads is how the armor and air units will not really work together.  This is really a subjective view point.  If played in conjunction with the upcoming dynamic campaign generator, both ground and air units will rely on each other to turn the tide of war for each side.  To suggest players will not take full advantage of communicating with aircraft/helos would really limit the players ability to successfully complete a mission.  But that is the glory of how you play DCS.  

If you have solo tank/aircraft crews on one side, red or blue, that do not communicate or work with each other, it is going to be very difficult to push the line forward.  What is air superiority without taking and holding ground from below.  However if the opposing ground force is using air support, air units are calling ground targets to the ground forces, and working together to secure an area, players will see the benefits of utilizing both together.  I am not saying there will not be times where air support is not needed and you cannot go in solo or with several friends, but I really think player ground modules will flesh out the already growing digital battlefield DCS has.

Now if you started a separate poll and people where like, I want Naval units first or operational SAM/AAA sites we could man, or anything else, I am still on board.  I think one thing that is important about these polls, even if redundant, is that ED consistently sees the customers desire to watch their product grow and keeps them informed we will always want more.  For a business, you could ask for nothing more than to see the desire of your customers ready to throw money at you because of how much they love your products.  It only fosters the desire of ED to venture down new paths. 

Look at he Cargo aircraft.  ED never had any plans to pursue it and then Anubis dropped his C-130 mod.  The crowd goes wild and now ED revaluated their stance and are developing a cargo aircraft.  I am not suggesting it is the Anubis C-130 (REALLY HOPE SO because there was an image showing the cockpit with ground radar) but we the customer help drive the company to make new products.  I highly encourage these polls to continue regardless of the topic.  We have new people coming to DCS all the time and it helps to gain their support as the business continues to grow.  Appreciate the response.  I would be interested if you started a separate poll.  I would gladly vote. 

Below are a couple great videos I found of what DCS could possibly be with ground units, but obviously at the ED fidelity level.

 

[lmp]

22 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

But isn't it all an incentive for ED to have a dedicated "ground" team then?
I'm pretty sure this could benefit both ground/helicopters and fast flyers.

Well, it's always a trade-off. Consider everything that would need to be developed to create a ground combat simulation in DCS that would rival dedicated ground sims (making it worthwhile to spend $30-50 on an individual module). Now consider what else could ED accomplish with those resources in all the other areas where DCS needs work. Doing one thing always means not doing something else.

But ok. Let's focus on benefitting helicopter and ground attack aircraft players. It's the year of the helicopter after all. What would those players notice and appreciate the most? Better AI, particularly on a platoon and higher level? More realistic communication with and between ground units? Weapon and damage modeling (focused primarily on surface to air and air to surface weaponry, because this is where the interaction happens)? Honestly, from the perspective of a ground attack player, I don't really care about the fidelity of engine modeling of an individual tank, or if its gun mantlet armour thickness is accurate. I do care if the enemy troops react in a realistic and believable way to what I'm doing and if my own troops are talking to me. Since pretty much forever ground units under fire move a few dozen meters in a random direction and freeze, waiting to be killed in subsequent attacks and redfor has no communication with ground troops available to them (while the blufor JTAC is primitive at best). These are the areas that need work first. Tank modules can wait. Let's have a believable ground war when looking at it from my cockpit first.

[MAXsenna]

Well, it's always a trade-off. Consider everything that would need to be developed to create a ground combat simulation in DCS that would rival dedicated ground sims (making it worthwhile to spend $30-50 on an individual module). Now consider what else could ED accomplish with those resources in all the other areas where DCS needs work. Doing one thing always means not doing something else.
But ok. Let's focus on benefitting helicopter and ground attack aircraft players. It's the year of the helicopter after all. What would those players notice and appreciate the most? Better AI, particularly on a platoon and higher level? More realistic communication with and between ground units? Weapon and damage modeling (focused primarily on surface to air and air to surface weaponry, because this is where the interaction happens)? Honestly, from the perspective of a ground attack player, I don't really care about the fidelity of engine modeling of an individual tank, or if its gun mantlet armour thickness is accurate. I do care if the enemy troops react in a realistic and believable way to what I'm doing and if my own troops are talking to me. Since pretty much forever ground units under fire move a few dozen meters in a random direction and freeze, waiting to be killed in subsequent attacks and redfor has no communication with ground troops available to them (while the blufor JTAC is primitive at best). These are the areas that need work first. Tank modules can wait. Let's have a believable ground war when looking at it from my cockpit first.

Fair points. I agree!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[lmp]

2 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

Well, first paragraph is bs because 1) there are 3rd parties

Sure, 3rd parties can build all the tanks. After ED builds all the systems and the tools needed and probably in the process does a proof of concept module or a couple that is. But yeah, after those tiny little details are resolved, 3rd parties can do the work. And then we will be able to drive around in our perfectly recreated Shermans and deplete health bars of AI ground units that have no concept of tactics beyond dispersing randomly and freezing in place until they are all dead. Because guess what, 3rd parties aren't building core systems for DCS such as damage models and ground AI.

2 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

2) you can't just take some developer from, say, weather modelling or missile mechanics and let them build a tank. That's not how it works. If ED was starting to work on this, they most likely would hire additional devs for this which specialized in this direction.

They could also, you know, hire additional devs to work on all the stuff that DCS players have asked for for years. That's what I meant by "resources". 

Edited October 17, 2021 by lmp

[lmp]

2 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

Second paragraph is just off-topic. This thread is not about how aviation players would benefit from this and that. It is about having full fidelity tanks and who's interested in it apart from anything air related.

It is on topic, because unless you want the tanks and the planes to synergize, then you're asking for two separate games in one... for the hell of it? Why not build a new game from scratch - it'll be easier!

[Brigg]

No. Let's get the air war done properly first

Edited October 17, 2021 by Brigg

[Silver_Dragon]

To build a vehicle module, need ED build the propper dll, funtionality (track / wheel phisics, Armour / Vehicle damage model, and more) and properties to insert a cockpit on a vehicle, similar to a aircraft, helo or SC (Ship). That is not a improved CA. A vehicle without a base has only a AI as actually. For them, need expand the "CA team" to convert them on the "ground team".

Some need remember some years ago when Wags request pics about the M1 interiors. Surelly a M1 "Tank Platton" will like to see into DCS. As the FPS, surely that can coming from the military.

 

Remember DCS has a land/air/sea simulator, see ground modules has only a matter of time.

Edited October 17, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[lmp]

43 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

If you only had read the thread... core improvements and shit, you know?

Very well, I will answer the question posted in the thread as directly as I can.

"Would you like to see Tank or other Armor modules created by ED or Third Party Devs?"

Not in DCS as it is now, ground combat is too barebones to do them justice. I would also not like ED to focus their development on ground combat as I feel those resources should be spent elsewhere.

43 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

Why would you put a helicopter in a fixed wing game?!?!?! Oh damn, why did they not produce a new game for the Apache or the Hind?!?!?! Oh weeeh.

You're way off topic and i just remember why you had been on my ignore list already.

Well then, for the benefit of others I guess, since you're ignoring me while also replying to me. And being off topic.

They didn't. They had a helicopter game (BS) and a fixed wing game (A-10C) and an older fixed wing game (LOMAC/FC) and they merged them all together at one point. Then, if memory serves me right, they added the Mustang into the mix. To this day I remember how we all felt this was a logical direction to go... why are you even asking me to explain why ED does what ED does? I'm not in their heads.

As for what's my take on where DCS should go - again, for the benefit of others, cause you clearly don't care - I see two good, non mutually exclusive reasons for DCS to expand into new areas. Either a lot of the existing assets, systems and mechanics can be reused or the new area of simulation will synergize well with the existing ones. A good example of an area where this would be the case could be air defense systems. Not sure there's a market for this, but it would make sense to me. We have good enough maps, targets with decent AI, there are obvious gameplay synergies. Existing gameplay benefits, new gameplay gets a head start with most of the core systems in place. A good example where this would very much not be the case could be, say, subsurface warfare - pretty much nothing gets reused here, everything needs to be built from scratch and there are no interactions with the existing gameplay.

Edited October 17, 2021 by lmp

[Callsign112]

To answer the question of this thread, definitely YES for any and all improvements to the ground war, especially for more detailed/ better modeled ground vehicles, and improved AI infantry. The biggest reason ED should IMO is one of the best things about DCS World... Combined Arms!

I know there must be a lot of people that enjoy using Combined Arms the way it is meant to be enjoyed, but I am surprised to say the least at how many people don't even seem to know its a thing. I think Combined Arms has to be one of the most underrated, misunderstood parts of DCS World, yet it helps form the most important aspect of a digital combat simulator and is arguably one of the most powerful and intuitive software components of DCS.

How many times have I heard someone repeat the misconception that the ground war is not possible in DCS, or that the maps wont support it, or that planes and tanks cannot coexist on a map? How many people have answered in these threads with claims that ED would first have to bring new maps, AI capabilities, weapon and damage modeling... and the list goes on? All of these things are not only here now... they are well advanced. 

The linked video below was taken from a single player mission with Combined Arms installed, and demonstrates how easy it is to get planes and tanks to interact with one another, and how realistic/capable the ground war already is in DCS. While it took a couple hours of game play to balance both red and blue teams, the mission itself took less than an hour to set up. A point worth mentioning here is that there were no real players in the video, meaning the action is all AI. While I was free to take control as either a pilot, or tank commander, the video was meant to show off the state of AI capabilities. In other words, as a single player controlling a vehicle/plane, DCS World is capable of generating very intense, realistic action scenarios using its AI assets.

And it doesn't stop there. Combined Arms not only allows me to create some of the most immersive single player engagements I have ever experienced on any platform, I can also create multi-player, or a mix of players and AI assets with the same level and intensity of action. DCS World and Combined Arms are perfect for any size group of players. Simply adjust the number of AI assets to deliver the desired level of action. The detail, realism, and intensity of the ground war action in DCS World already outclasses a number of other available platforms, and it is still in a relatively early stage. 

For anyone that does not understand how jets/planes/tanks/infantry can interact with each other, they have either never used Combined Arms, or are missing the point completely. The interaction is up to the person creating the mission. You might want to include Close Air Support for ground units that are trying to capture/defend an objective. Or you might want to pit ground units that come equipped with their own air defense assets against fast ground attack aircraft. You could also have aerial combat raging overhead while a ground war plays out below. The point is it is up to you, and the possibilities are only limited by your imagination.        

 

 

 

[Devil 505]

112,

Love the demo you put together.  Very good example of Combined Arms in it current state.  I could not agree with you more.  The idea DCS is not in a state for ground warfare is an obsolete statement at this point.  It does not take but a minute or two to YouTube players taking advantage of Combined Arms and having a good time.  Does it need some improvements, absolutely, however I do feel the maps are at a state where they could utilize an armor module.  We have people in its current state enjoying the very generic units you can play with now.  As I have always stated in the past, this is a no brainer.  Its not a matter of if, just a matter of when will DCS do it.  As with everything in DCS world, I hope it is sooner than later, but I will take whatever comes first.

[StevanJ]

Nice, was that a Hind, defeating 3 A10C's in a dogfight?

[Callsign112]

13 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

112,

Love the demo you put together.  Very good example of Combined Arms in it current state.  I could not agree with you more.  The idea DCS is not in a state for ground warfare is an obsolete statement at this point.  It does not take but a minute or two to YouTube players taking advantage of Combined Arms and having a good time.  Does it need some improvements, absolutely, however I do feel the maps are at a state where they could utilize an armor module.  We have people in its current state enjoying the very generic units you can play with now.  As I have always stated in the past, this is a no brainer.  Its not a matter of if, just a matter of when will DCS do it.  As with everything in DCS world, I hope it is sooner than later, but I will take whatever comes first.

I agree, even the air war improves when you add the ground war with it IMO. Personally, I like to set my missions up so that I do the flying part first, then switch to ground units to finish up the mission objectives. But if your playing with a group of people, it would be just as easy to have everyone assigned to a duty/task throughout the mission, or have them roam to different vehicles as they desire/need. And that is the thing with Combined Arms IMO, it adds so much flexibility with not only what you can do, but what you do it in.

Thanks for starting this thread because I really think ED should give the ground war another look sooner than later.