Jump to content

Worthwhile targets


harv

Recommended Posts

Alongside the inception of the Apache into the DCS lineup should also be at least a reasonable improvement in infantry / small arms / jeep ai. 

 

Even if a cluster of enemies was to disperse in a random NESW direction when they detect incoming fire it would hugely add to the immersion.

 

I don't expect to see infantry taking cover behind objects or genuinely adopting safer positions; just the illusion that they are would totally suffice.

 

As much as I love DCS right now, infantry / BMP's just loitering until your next staffing pass simply won't cut it. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Enduro14 said:

They already do, set the unit to disperse under fire in advanced waypoint settings

Is this a typical reaction for ground units under fire say in an instant action mission or a mission that has been generated?  Or, does it need to be actively specified in the mission editor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dispersion is on by default. I think the default is that they disperse and stop for 10 minutes and then go on about their business. The behavior can be changed with a way point action, so that they will disperse for a shorter or longer time, or not at all.

Speaking of worthwhile targets - I guess you all saw the new Toyota technicals in the latest Apache video? 😄


Edited by doedkoett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the dispersion that you mention isn't dramatic enough. I wonder if people agree with the following:

 

Units should disperse more widely and more randomly.

 

They should pop smoke.

 

They should rout completely sometimes. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fairly sure ED have said they're working on AI behaviour both in the air and on the ground. It's just a matter of waiting to see what they're working on. I can't see us finding out until next year, maybe in the start-of-2022 'roadmap' update if we're very lucky.

It goes without saying the AI in general needs a lot of work. But I have to assume ED knows that for the dynamic campaign, which they're putting so much effort into, to work then it will need an AI capable of presenting a realistic threat, challenge and behaviour to the player. So these developments should, hopefully, be occurring in parallel.

  • Like 2

- i7-7700k

- 32GB DDR4 2400Mhz

- GTX 1080 8GB

- Installed on SSD

- TM Warthog

 

DCS Modules - A-10C; M-2000C; AV8B; F/A-18C; Ka-50; FC-3; UH-1H; F-5E; Mi-8; F-14; Persian Gulf; NTTR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Am 26.11.2021 um 13:03 schrieb harv:

I think that the dispersion that you mention isn't dramatic enough. I wonder if people agree with the following:

 

Units should disperse more widely and more randomly.

 

They should pop smoke.

 

They should rout completely sometimes. 

They disperse away from the road, which is quite ok especially in urban areas. 

Fleeing the scene (rout) is something the mission creator needs to do based on conditions or via script and honestly I am happy the AI does not flee from combat unpredictable and in a random direction, as it would make reliable results in missions and campaigns even more difficult.

That stuff is something for the dynamic campaign feature, we hopefully see one day, together with logistics, morale and tear and wear...

but for now the improvements in wayfinding, critical hit damage modeling and granular control a welcome advance for ground forces.

I'd rather see more unarmed vehicles, civilians or specifically the Technicals as an unarmed white 4x4 to model ROE and prevention of collateral damage.

 

P.S. ...and APC/IFV/Tanks armed with smoke grenades DO pop smoke, but that effect is indeed too short and not very convincing. 😉


Edited by shagrat

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, shagrat said:

I'd rather see more unarmed vehicles, civilians or specifically the Technicals as an unarmed white 4x4 to model ROE and prevention of collateral damage.

We're working on a bunch or technicals for 2SAP, in case you're interested. Some have 14.5mm MG, some are equipped with ZSUs, some are suicide vehicles, etc.

Digital Combat Simulator  Black Shark Screenshot 2021.09.13 - 11.14.55.50.jpg

Digital Combat Simulator  Black Shark Screenshot 2021.09.13 - 11.08.16.83.jpg

Digital Combat Simulator  Black Shark Screenshot 2021.09.13 - 11.43.50.74.jpg

 

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 8 Stunden schrieb LetMePickThat:

We're working on a bunch or technicals for 2SAP, in case you're interested. Some have 14.5mm MG, some are equipped with ZSUs, some are suicide vehicles, etc.

Digital Combat Simulator  Black Shark Screenshot 2021.09.13 - 11.14.55.50.jpg

Digital Combat Simulator  Black Shark Screenshot 2021.09.13 - 11.08.16.83.jpg

Digital Combat Simulator  Black Shark Screenshot 2021.09.13 - 11.43.50.74.jpg

 

 

 

Could you do one(!) of these as a civilian, unarmed(!) vehicle, may be with liveries (white, tan, desert, colors)?

If we have just ONE model, that comes as armed vs unarmed, we could enforce Visual Identification and subsequently Rules Of Engagement! 

  • Like 5

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, shagrat said:

P.S. ...and APC/IFV/Tanks armed with smoke grenades DO pop smoke, but that effect is indeed too short and not very convincing. 😉

The first few times I saw this, I thought it was some weird graphics glitch. 🙂 Only later I found out it was meant to represent a smoke grenade. 

In case ED ever asks about it on internal forum or somesuch, real tank smokes are usually WP, and they put up a huge, all-encompassing wall of thick white smoke that's completely opaque in visual and IR. They're meant as countermeasures against gun and missile attack, so they have to work quickly. The also have a very distinctive look, first the grenades explode in air with an orange flash, scattering the burning phosphorus particles which then fall to the ground, trailing white smoke. The trails then expand and merge, forming a solid screen. Sometimes there's also a second system that dumps oil into exhaust, creating a billowing white cloud that envelopes the tank when stationary and trails behind it when it's moving. I think that one is mostly to scatter guidance lasers, this kind of smoke is also more persistent, letting other forces use it for cover. WP smoke is hot and as such, likes to go up, which is good for marking targets, but bad for persistent smokescreens (OTOH, you can't see through smoke any better than the enemy can, so this can be a good thing, too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 15 Minuten schrieb Dragon1-1:

The first few times I saw this, I thought it was some weird graphics glitch. 🙂 Only later I found out it was meant to represent a smoke grenade. 

In case ED ever asks about it on internal forum or somesuch, real tank smokes are usually WP, and they put up a huge, all-encompassing wall of thick white smoke that's completely opaque in visual and IR. They're meant as countermeasures against gun and missile attack, so they have to work quickly. The also have a very distinctive look, first the grenades explode in air with an orange flash, scattering the burning phosphorus particles which then fall to the ground, trailing white smoke. The trails then expand and merge, forming a solid screen. Sometimes there's also a second system that dumps oil into exhaust, creating a billowing white cloud that envelopes the tank when stationary and trails behind it when it's moving. I think that one is mostly to scatter guidance lasers, this kind of smoke is also more persistent, letting other forces use it for cover. WP smoke is hot and as such, likes to go up, which is good for marking targets, but bad for persistent smokescreens (OTOH, you can't see through smoke any better than the enemy can, so this can be a good thing, too).

Yeah, german ex-army here, I am woefully aware how much improvement the smoke screen needs.

On the other hand I know more smoke (particle effects) = performance hit, so if for example a dozen tanks get under attack and defended with a smokescreen we may end up with single digit FPS. With the VR guys already, constantly whining about FPS, it is a tough decision I guess.

In theory, you could script "realistic" smokescreens with white smoke markers... but with the above performance penalties.

Smoke Generators (adding stuff into the engine) is mostly used when a Tank reverses out of a position to cover the retreat, rarely to lay a screen in front of advancing troops, but it  still is a thing in the modern MBTs.


Edited by shagrat
  • Like 1

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, shagrat said:

On the other hand I know more smoke (particle effects) = performance hit, so if for example a dozen tanks get under attack and defended with a smokescreen we may end up with single digit FPS. With the VR guys already, constantly whining about FPS, it is a tough decision I guess.

I was thinking the volumetric cloud rendering could help, perhaps, at least with the end result. Volumetrics do seem to have a performance benefit when done correctly (though that's probably because DCS uses an ancient particle system). Of course, it's hard to do WP without a large number of particle effects, but I don't think it needs to be super-detailed unless seen from up close. Also, some culling might help, for example if a dozen tanks deploy smokescreen at once, the trails would be a lot less dense than if it's just one. It looks like crap, but most compromises do, and most of the time you'd be seeing that on a grainy TGP picture, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am 13.12.2021 um 13:48 schrieb LetMePickThat:

The last one is unarmed. 🙂

Yeah, but it looks very "distinguishable" with the tire on top... But yep, should be good enough.

I really hope ED does the same with the Technical shown in Wags AH-64 video.

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need some civilians to put in missions so we have to avoid collateral damage.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

System: Intel Core i9-9900KF @ 5 Ghz, Z-390 Gaming X, 64Gb DDR4-3200, EVGA GeForce RTX 3090 FTW3, Dedicated SSD, HP Reverb G2, Winwing Orion & F-16EX

DCS Modules: A-10C II,  A/V-8B NA, Bf-109 K4, P-51D, P-47D, F/A-18C, F-14 A/B, F-16 CM, F-86F, JF-17, KA-50 Black Shark 2, UH-1H, Mosquito, AH-64D Longbow 

Terrains & Tech:  Caucasus, Persian Gulf, Normandy, Syria, Nevada, The Channel, Combined Arms, WWII Assets, Supercarrier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Mad Dog 762 said:

We need some civilians to put in missions so we have to avoid collateral damage.  

It would help if all the structures on the map actually had damage models so you could at least see if you'd hit a building, but a fairly big percentage don't unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually dug up a post of mine on this very forum from 2009:

Quote
    •  

Whilst I too would love to see something like the Longbow, it's actually mind boggling how complex this thing is, and even more so to simulate an AI front/backseater. I can see why ED chose to simulate a single seater attack helicopter, a very wise choice.

 

For those who want to get a clue just how demanding operating a Longbow Apache is, and how much crew co-ordination is required, read the recently released 'Apache' by Ed Macy, detailing the Royal Army Air Corp (something like that!) involvement in the Helmand province in Afghanistan. Frankly, I don't think a fully realistic representation of what this helicopter can do is possible on todays PC's, let alone a plausible CPG representation, where the dismal levels of even the best AI would really show up.

 

The book is a good read (obviously they deal with the Westland Apache AH Mk1, the British version, but the concepts are the same), and the part dealing with the evacuation of Royal Marine Mathew Ford makes for very exciting reading. Worthwhile.

 

My point then, is rather go for the A model Apache, rather than the latest and greatest Longbow version, there's a much better chance of getting something a little closer to reality.

 

I'm both pleased at the progress that has been made, but still fundamentally concerned that the detailed interaction between troops and attack helicopters like the Apache is still a very long distance off. Was quite a trip down memory lane reading all the old stuff. But I'm still worried about the interaction with an AI copilot, and ground troops complete lack of ability to act like actual troops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, ARM505 said:

I actually dug up a post of mine on this very forum from 2009:

 

I'm both pleased at the progress that has been made, but still fundamentally concerned that the detailed interaction between troops and attack helicopters like the Apache is still a very long distance off. Was quite a trip down memory lane reading all the old stuff. But I'm still worried about the interaction with an AI copilot, and ground troops complete lack of ability to act like actual troops.

I think if you're going to fly a dual pilot cockpit using an AI to supplement the other person so you can do it all by yourself then there are going to be interactions that aren't real.  If you want to fly a dual pilot cockpit and have a realistic experience have a person in the other cockpit. 

If you go well all I do is play single player, then understand that's something you're giving up and your supplementing another person with an AI which allows you to manipulate the other seats functions via an interface.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent the bulk of my Army career (Armoured Corp) training for Peer / Near-Peer conflict before being dropped into the WOT sh1t show back in the early 2000's. Adapting manoeuvre warfare concepts meant we had to come up with some creative new definitions.

OODA Loop (Doctrine) - Observe, Orient, Decide, Act

OODA Loop (Reality) - Observe, Over-react, Destroy, Apologise

Whatever floats your boat, but I personally have had my fill of COIN Ops and my preference with DCS is to play missions where:

a. I get to be up there rather than down here.

b. Target Vs Not a target is much clearer.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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