DCS Combined ARMS Stryker Operator

[Devil 505]

ED,

I highly recommend reaching out to this guy possibly via his YouTube channel.  He sounds like a wealth of knowledge on the Stryker's we have in DCS and could provide some outstanding details to make them more realistic.  After watching his video, it inspired me to start this thread in hopes you could possibly look into the things he is pointing out.  I am sure he would be honored to mkae DCS a better sim as he is clearly a vet who has a lot of time and love with the Stryker family.

 

[Callsign112]

I really enjoy the way he presents his stuff on YouTube. It might be worth mentioning here again that he pointed out inconsistencies with the Abrams gun around the same time as well? It would be nice to see some of these things updated for sure.

 

 

 

[Apocalypse31]

I'm here...

[Devil 505]

15 hours ago, Apocalypse31 said:

I'm here...

Glad to see you found your way to the thread brother.  I would highly encourage you and anyone you know who can bring experience or knowledge to Combined arms and/or its armored units to start posting on this thread.  They need subject matter experts like yourself and I know ED monitors this forum really well.  This might be your chance to provide some much needed significant data to the devs on Combined Arms.  Really looking forward to what you have to talk about.  Those videos you made are an outstanding start.  Looking forward to getting a convo going on the subject matter.  

[StevanJ]

23 hours ago, Apocalypse31 said:

I'm here...

Hey man how about more videos?
Would love a 'How to play combined arms' style tutorial..

[Callsign112]

On 10/22/2021 at 7:01 AM, Apocalypse31 said:

I'm here...

Yeah +1. Keep the videos coming. I think feedback like yours helps to keep ED informed on the end users perspective. I really enjoy Combined Arms, and I especially enjoy your insights on its use. 

[Meliok]

With many helicopters coming out, I definitely hope that some love will be shown towards Combined Arms. With some tweaks and some additions, this module can really be a game changer ! 

[Apocalypse31]

On 10/22/2021 at 10:21 PM, Devil 505 said:

Glad to see you found your way to the thread brother.  I would highly encourage you and anyone you know who can bring experience or knowledge to Combined arms and/or its armored units to start posting on this thread.  They need subject matter experts like yourself and I know ED monitors this forum really well.  This might be your chance to provide some much needed significant data to the devs on Combined Arms.  Really looking forward to what you have to talk about.  Those videos you made are an outstanding start.  Looking forward to getting a convo going on the subject matter.  

I was contacted by some folks shortly after I published the video, but nothing has changed.

 

On 10/23/2021 at 6:24 AM, StevanJ said:

Would love a 'How to play combined arms' style tutorial..

Sorry. No plans for anything like that. I'm not really a 'tutorial video' guy. I do appreciate those who make them. I just don't have the time or patience. 

[Callsign112]

Really enjoyed your light armored recon video in Arma3, any chance we could see you put together a DCS version? 

[Devil 505]

On 10/28/2021 at 6:07 AM, Apocalypse31 said:

I was contacted by some folks shortly after I published the video, but nothing has changed.

Hopefully that will change in the near future.  Seems like they have had their hands busy with the Apache and Hind this year along with other updates.  That being said, I would like to think when Combined Arms starts to see improvements and the dynamic campaign is closer, they would need guys like yourself to weigh in on the subject matter.  For the sake of the rest of us out here without the experience you have, do not give up on them.  Maybe shoot them a follow up email asking when they might need your assistance or if there is any plans to make changes in the near future.  

The best thing about these forums is finding people like you with the hands on experience that can make DCS World the best damn combat sim out there, getting as close to the real thing as possible.  Being a vet/cop/govt contractor, it is awesome to meet like minded professionals on here that want to make DCS the most it can be.  Keep the pressure on them brother, I want to see full fidelity armor modules some day and I think its coming.

[Silver_Dragon]

CA was based on a profesional product, a British Army JTAC desktop trainer.

After them coming the extinct "The Battle Simulator".

To "convert" them on full fidelity will need a military contract as some of the military aircrafts trainer on the ANG, USAF, Canada, Norway, Poland, etc, talked by Simon / Wags on pass interviews. Build a Hardcore vehicle can require military aproval, military contract as a Steel Beast. The same situation will build a FPS on DCS Work, as ED has talked "ED dont build a FPS if military has not get interests".

Edited November 14, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[Callsign112]

Thanks for showing some of the history behind Combined Arms. Lately, I have been spending a lot of time in Combined Arms. Haven't flown in almost 2 weeks.   

[Devil 505]

7 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

To "convert" them on full fidelity will need a military contract as some of the military aircrafts trainer on the ANG, USAF, Canada, Norway, Poland, etc, talked by Simon / Wags on pass interviews. Build a Hardcore vehicle can require military aproval, military contract as a Steel Beast. The same situation will build a FPS on DCS Work, as ED has talked "ED dont build a FPS if military has not get interests".

This is good info indeed.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it was mentioned by Wags or Simon this year that the US Army had shown an interest in armored units and asked if ED was capable of delivering in that market.  ED said it was not out of the question but gave no firm answer during the interview.  I want to say the interview was probably with the Grim Reapers.  Sounds like the convo has already been brought up at least in passing between ED and their Military customers.  

[Callsign112]

6 minutes ago, Devil 505 said:

This is good info indeed.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it was mentioned by Wags or Simon this year that the US Army had shown an interest in armored units and asked if ED was capable of delivering in that market.  ED said it was not out of the question but gave no firm answer during the interview.  I want to say the interview was probably with the Grim Reapers.  Sounds like the convo has already been brought up at least in passing between ED and their Military customers.  

Yeah I don't know because I am relatively new here, but I would say based on what has gone into the Combined Arms module, there has to be more in the works than just targets for planes. At least that's the story I'm sticking to, if not the one I'm hoping for.

[Apocalypse31]

On 11/13/2021 at 11:33 AM, Silver_Dragon said:

To "convert" them on full fidelity will need a military contract as some of the military aircrafts trainer on the ANG, USAF, Canada, Norway, Poland, etc, talked by Simon / Wags on pass interviews. Build a Hardcore vehicle can require military aproval, military contract as a Steel Beast. The same situation will build a FPS on DCS Work, as ED has talked "ED dont build a FPS if military has not get interests".

Nobody is asking for full fidelity.

I personally just want to see things fixed. 

Nothing in those videos that I made goes above and beyond what is already in game. I'm literally just asking for certain things in game to be fixed. 

On 11/11/2021 at 12:52 PM, Callsign112 said:

Really enjoyed your light armored recon video in Arma3, any chance we could see you put together a DCS version? 

I'll consider it, but there are significant roadblocks.

1. Those ARMA missions are dynamically created. We have nothing like that in DCS, so I'd have to build the mission myself and then its no fun when I already know composition and disposition of enemy forces.

2. We have no dismounted forces that are capable of doing recon in DCS. As you see in that video, I used a mixture of mounted and dismounted movements to make sure that I didn't overcommit. That's not possible in DCS, as we lack any form of First Person infantry (Stinger soldiers would be difficult)

[Apocalypse31]

20 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it was mentioned by Wags or Simon this year that the US Army had shown an interest in armored units and asked if ED was capable of delivering in that market

I'm not speaking for any party, but the US Army is pretty solidified in its simulations program.

VBS is and has been the winner of that contract for many many years, so much so that the contract is basically written FOR them. The US Army is also going to a global simulation to feed a 1-sized-fits-all simulation that can support individual Soldier to theater level simulations. A single simulation program to rule them all. 

This trend of seeing mil-simulations that depict the entire world is not a coincidence. It's because there is a military demand for a single simulation to do everything instead of using 4 or 5 different simulations to do various things at echelon. Each one of those simulation programs comes with significant back-end.

[Callsign112]

40 minutes ago, Apocalypse31 said:

Nobody is asking for full fidelity.

I personally just want to see things fixed. 

Nothing in those videos that I made goes above and beyond what is already in game. I'm literally just asking for certain things in game to be fixed. 

I'll consider it, but there are significant roadblocks.

1. Those ARMA missions are dynamically created. We have nothing like that in DCS, so I'd have to build the mission myself and then its no fun when I already know composition and disposition of enemy forces.

2. We have no dismounted forces that are capable of doing recon in DCS. As you see in that video, I used a mixture of mounted and dismounted movements to make sure that I didn't overcommit. That's not possible in DCS, as we lack any form of First Person infantry (Stinger soldiers would be difficult)

Hey thanks for your response.

Yeah I realize you would be making the mission, and on the surface how that might sound like it would kill all the enjoyment because you already know whats in front of you, but you might be surprised at how different it is to actually drive the mission, even when your the one that created it.

You can use changes in distance to enemy formations, their direction of movement (zig zag) and the number of way points given. You can also use variations in the speed set for each enemy unit waypoint, as well as use multiple formations starting from and going to different destinations. It also helps to use map locations with hills and land formations that can obstruct visibility. I like the Caucasus map for this, but you can easily use other map features like vegetation on the Normandy map.

Make the mission without closely studying map detail, and like I said, you might be surprised at how everything looks once your in the tank. The video I posted in the linked thread was done in this way. I knew that there were groups of enemy units, but I didn't know exactly where they would be as I drove through the map. I knew the general direction/approximate location to look, but not exact. The only formation I knew the location of was the last formation that was traveling on a road. I just didn't know how far along their route they would be when I got there. But the first two groups of enemies were almost like a chance encounter in that I had to find them first.

 Regarding the infantry issue, that is sort of why I made the request. Having more of a focus on vehicles, I thought it would be interesting to see a DCS version of a light armor recon. I am always interested in learning more about deployment strength. Like what would you deploy for a given mission?

 

[Silver_Dragon]

49 minutes ago, Apocalypse31 said:

I'm not speaking for any party, but the US Army is pretty solidified in its simulations program.

VBS is and has been the winner of that contract for many many years, so much so that the contract is basically written FOR them. The US Army is also going to a global simulation to feed a 1-sized-fits-all simulation that can support individual Soldier to theater level simulations. A single simulation program to rule them all. 

This trend of seeing mil-simulations that depict the entire world is not a coincidence. It's because there is a military demand for a single simulation to do everything instead of using 4 or 5 different simulations to do various things at echelon. Each one of those simulation programs comes with significant back-end.

ED has working on your Whole world, surelly by requirement to the military branch.

[Callsign112]

As discussed elsewhere, ground vehicles in DCS Combined Arms are continually being updated and improved. The linked video gives an overview of how missile systems for vehicles like the Bradely IFV and Stryker ATGM are modeled, as well as the gun stabilization and target lock features. 

Most ground vehicles will show slightly different behavior in their modeled features depending on whether the unit is being directly controlled by a player, or acting as an Ai unit.

For example, when vehicles like the Bradely IFV, or the Stryker ATGM are being directly controlled by a player, all weapons systems are immediately available along with their targeting views from the default gunners station.

When acting as an Ai unit, the missile systems will more appropriately turn on only after an enemy unit has been detected and the ROE for the unit are set appropriately.

In order to make the modeled behavior for player controlled units more like their Ai counterparts, a keybinding to toggle both the missile system and its gun sight view On/Off would have to be added. This would give the player control over when each weapon system is active.

And as seen in the linked video, gun stabilization now works much better than it did a year ago. But for vehicles like the Abrams tank for example, gun stabilization should be set to "ON" by default as previously suggested by @Apocalypse31. After looking at how gun stabilization is modeled in CA, I'm not sure how practical it would be to have it turned on by default, even though it should be.

To activate, the player simply presses the "V" key which appears to fix the gun sight to the specific point (pixel) being aimed at. This causes the turret to move independently of the hull so that it remains fixed on that same point until the next reference point is selected. So having gun stabilization ON by default would cause problems for player control during game play. 

At the same time, the target lock feature can be activated by pressing the "Enter" key. If the target is stationary, and both the "V" and "Enter" keys are pressed, the gun sight and target lock icon will remain appropriately fixed on the target even during hull movement.

But if the target is moving, the target lock icon, which is adjusted for range and speed, will follow appropriately, but the gun sight will remain fixed at the point it was aimed at when the "V" key was pressed. This causes an increased separation between the gun sight and the target to be followed as movement continues.

The question I have is whether it would be better to model gun stabilization on something other than a point of reference? If gun stabilization was modeled on something like the angle the player was aiming at, so that the starting default would be 90 degrees from the vertical and centered with the hull, and the target lock feature included a point of reference in its model (center of its targeting icon), then gun stabilization could be turned on by default, and modeled behavior of both features would more closely resemble the tank IRL.

 

[Apocalypse31]

Quote

And as seen in the linked video, gun stabilization now works much better than it did a year ago. But for vehicles like the Abrams tank for example, gun stabilization should be set to "ON" by default as previously suggested by @Apocalypse31. After looking at how gun stabilization is modeled in CA, I'm not sure how practical it would be to have it turned on by default, even though it should be.

I'd even argue that stabilization shouldn't even be an on/off option for the M1. It's only used in emergency modes that aren't even modelled in DCS:CA

 

Also - Target lock is super cringey and I wish they'd remove it. I normally remove it from any missions that I make.  Learn how to use the LRF and your the in-game target lead.....yep, lead is actually modelled in game. 

[Callsign112]

Well I really like the fact that stabilization is there, and it now does what it is supposed to do in terms of keeping the gun sight from jumping around with each shot/while moving. You can see a big difference in the video as I toggle stabilization On/Off during both fire and movement.

Compare targeting in the Abrams in the video you did more than a year ago with today... I would say they answered to your feedback, which is always nice.

But to me it seems to also act a bit like a targeting feature, and I think that might be at least one of the reasons why we don't see it ON by default.

How do you get laser range finder to work. I tried, but can't seem to figure it out. Saw a YouTube where the guy mentioned using the targeting computer with LtShift + L, or something like that IIRC, but it never worked for me.

I know the Target Lock feature ("Enter" key) also adjusts for speed and distance. If you haven't tried it yet, just place the tank you want to fire from at a right angle to the vehicle you want to target. Play around with the targeted vehicles distance from your gun, and the speed at which it crosses your path. Works very well, as long as you can keep your gun sight on the lock.

 

[Apocalypse31]

22 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Well I really like the fact that stabilization is there, and it now does what it is supposed to do in terms of keeping the gun sight from jumping around with each shot/while moving.

I'm not saying that they should disable it. 

I'm saying that it should ALWAYS be ON and it shouldn't even be a toggle on/off in the M1 series. 

[Callsign112]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that I am glad it is there and is now doing what it should be doing, all be it with a slight overreach IMO.

The intent of the video was meant to highlight the point you raised about it not being ON by default. After looking closer at it, I was wondering if the reason for that wasn't because the turret gets locked to a position when the "V" key is pressed. I think they need to fix that, because it makes using gun stabilization awkward. 

But you mentioned using LRF to get a target lead.... how do you that? I tried, but can't figure it out.

 

[DTS_Maton]

i would already be happy if i can simply drive my hummer up the mountain 

for some reason DCS Hummers have no low gear and as a former military landrover driver , we had 4 cylinder diesels you could take some decent hills

it was more  of a quistion if your traction would hold up

i must say as i was attached to a training company i still remember the remarks of the instructors which come very usefull in DCS! 

[Kilo]

23 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

But you mentioned using LRF to get a target lead.... how do you that? I tried, but can't figure it out.

To quote myself...

It's an oddly named keybinding, but it sure does make shooting moving targets that much more interesting and easier.