Jump to content

PLZ make combat arms great again!!!!


DTS_Maton

Recommended Posts

plz fix combat arms as it is totally useless at the moment, units don,t drive along assigned routes ,freeze after several 110 meters gets lost in the woods because they refuse to use the yellow brick road!.

they decide to cross rivers while they are not ambfibious and do so at speed only to get lost again 

basicly you have to baby each single unit to the point where you want to have them, this can take up to several driving order but even then they decide to leave in the excat oppostie direction as assigned 

avenger_river_small.png

leopard2_wild_ride_small.png

818_ambvibious_small.png

70 ton floating tank and some examples of getting stuck in the forest all these units had routes assigned over the road

leopard2_ambvibious_small.png

units_lost_in_wild_beyonder.png

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DTS_Maton said:

plz fix combat arms as it is totally useless at the moment, units don,t drive along assigned routes ,freeze after several 110 meters gets lost in the woods because they refuse to use the yellow brick road!.

they decide to cross rivers while they are not ambfibious and do so at speed only to get lost again 

basicly you have to baby each single unit to the point where you want to have them, this can take up to several driving order but even then they decide to leave in the excat oppostie direction as assigned 

avenger_river_small.png

leopard2_wild_ride_small.png

818_ambvibious_small.png

70 ton floating tank and some examples of getting stuck in the forest all these units had routes assigned over the road

leopard2_ambvibious_small.png

units_lost_in_wild_beyonder.png

I have spent what must be hundreds of hours by now working with ground units and Ai logic, and the primary reason I have done so was to see if I couldn't help with some of the frustrations the community is facing. So thanks for posting.

I have to say though, I can't reproduce what you are seeing. Would you be willing to share the mission file, and is this in SP mode? I was able to get a Leo tank to follow the way point paths you are showing across both bridges without any issues in SP mode.

I have presonally noticed major improvements in Ai path finding since I started using Combined Arms, and can now use single way point navigation across entire maps using multiple vehicles On-Road without any issues. Off-road, and complex terrain require more attention, but except for bodies of water/rivers, even dense forest can be navigated by large groups of vehicles with little issue most of the time.

I give two examples in the linked video, but I drive right across Normandy, the Channel, Nevada, the Caucasus, and the Marianas with no issues from a single column of On-road vehicles perspective.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It,s a multiplayer track as i like the uncertainty and only do this

i copied it to my google drive folder as it is 65MB large and can't upload here 

now it includes my first 10 minutes with the Hind which i just bought before 

as an excuse i must mention i don,t have rudder pedals so i do everything with my Z and X keys 🤫

why i like the shark so much!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12HLT0xjRMugJ1r6xSSE_fcbVA5Fn2wy6/view?usp=sharing

i replayed the track file and everthing shows up very funny at 4X speed

enjoy

 

multiplayer track units moving of route


Edited by DTS_Maton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DTS_Maton, thanks for that. All of my DCS game play at the moment is SP stable version. Yeah, my understanding is that MP is more problematic. Hopefully we will see more improvements there soon. It makes me wonder though if it is a CA problem, or something else. I have created missions that have 100+ units (planes/vehicles) using Ai path finding logic. Even though all of the vehicles have their own path finding, they can all be driven by real players. The only thing I haven't tried in DCS is to host one of those missions to see what happens when another real player joins me. I will have to find the time to get to that next.

Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add this to the list of amphibious vehicles.

 

 

..

Screen_211125_154015.jpg

  • Like 1

I7 2600K @ 3.8, CoolerMaster 212X, EVGA GTX 1070 8gb. RAM 16gb Corsair, 1kw PSU. 2 x WD SSD. 1 x Samsung M2 NVMe. 3 x HDD. Saitek X-52. Saitek Pro Flight pedals. CH Flight Sim yoke. TrackIR 5. Win 10 Pro. IIyama 1080p. MSAA x 2, SSAA x 1.5. Settings High. Harrier/Spitfire/Beaufighter/The Channel, fanboy..





..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, 3WA said:

Combined arms is totally screwed, and we're just going to have to wait for it to be completely overhauled.

Realistically, they should just start making vehicle modules.

 

3 hours ago, Holbeach said:

Add this to the list of amphibious vehicles.

 

 

..

Screen_211125_154015.jpg

If we take a step back, clearly we can see that the team at ED has proven itself to be capable of pulling off some pretty tricky stuff in the computer coding department. I mean, they are not only software engineering the worlds most sophisticated pieces of military avionics hardware into machine code, but they built the entire ecosystem needed for these technological wonders to operate in, including an intuitive user interface that allows virtually anyone interested to input instructions and then watch as they fly around to preform them.

So I am pretty sure ED can make it so that trucks drive on roads in a MP environment. What ever the issue is, I am sure it is more a matter of the amount of time spent dealing with it then anything else. I see Combined Arms as being very far from totally screwed, and in stead of needing to be completely overhauled, I think the MP feature just needs to be worked on more.

In fact, speaking just about its use in SP mode, the Combined Arms module lives up to its product description very well. It does all of the things it claims it can be used for and more. After learning some of the history surrounding the module, I get why CA is at its core a combat training simulator, although it is not really being marketed as such. IMO, Combined Arms sits in the same category as products like Steel Beasts, except instead of focusing on a single vehicle, its focus is on the entire battle field and what happens there. You can use it as an incredibly powerful tool to help build/create very immersive game play scenarios, or you can use it as an incredibly powerful teaching tool. Groups running their own server could use it to train / practice new squadron recruits / experienced pilots to scramble into action at the sound of a siren for example. 

But threads like this are proof positive that ED needs to devote more development time to the CA module. Clearly the benefit would be an improved MP experience.          

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 час назад, 3WA сказал:

Combined arms is totally screwed, and we're just going to have to wait for it to be completely overhauled.

Realistically, they should just start making vehicle modules.

Thisss. The Hog prompted the introduction of JTAC, the Hornet paved the way for the Supercarrier, the Apache may probably bring some ground unit AI improvements. I'm perfectly willing to shell out $80 for a full fidelity T-72, and that would indeed demand some attention to CA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A ground stabelised artillery sight would be nice so the distance unit are correct no matter what position the units is standing angeled versus the ground

https://nigelef.tripod.com/fc_laying.htm

at the moment i use the JTAC  binocular to make fine adjustements to gun or rocket turret as it has a 0,00 resolution as opposed to the very course gradients of the normal sight 

going from 0 to 5 with no resolution in between 

that is with line of sight 

it would be great if i can fire a rocket or gun from non line of sight jump into a vehicle which has line of sight so i can see where the round hits!

the gun should stay aimed and not store itself as it does now 

ideally you would do this with 2 persons but not everybody like to take the time with this in multiplayer 

one of the number one plus points of combat arms is i can sip  my coffee while doing this as opposed to flying when i have my hands full 😜

artillery_sights.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from improved modeling for things like suspension, armor, armament/gun sight, there are a number of little things that could be done to improve ground vehicles. But it is also worth noting that what ED has implemented is First-In-Class even when compared to other products that are strictly focused on ground vehicles. I have yet to come across a better implementation of turret traverse with a mouse. And the implementation of driving mechanics in terms of gas, brake, stick shift... ect has all the right elements in place, and only needs a bit of clean up.

For me another area that could use a review/update are grouped vehicles and how we move them. Currently, we cannot form groups on the fly while a mission is running. We can take control of the primary unit and assign way points to the vehicles in its group, but we cannot drag and select 2 units out of a larger group and have them advance as a scouting party for example.

This would go a long way in improving the user interface/control in CA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2021 at 4:12 PM, WarbossPetross said:

I'm perfectly willing to shell out $80 for a full fidelity T-72

I think a lot of people would, if it was as complete as the A-10, Apache, etc.

That, and we got more than just empty fields of grain and trees on the ground.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

having the option to give different direktives to groups or coloms would be a great addition 

if during an encounter a vehicle is badly damaged and is now only able to do 12 km/hour it will hold up the column 

what i do now is just euthanise the vehicle which is a big shame especially if it,s an abrams 

the same option for repair as you have for planes now would also be a welcome addition 

stand next to an ammo truck for 3 minutes and everything is buffed out!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
6 hours ago, Zimmerdylan said:

  Combined Arms never worked the way it was supposedly designed to. Why all the fuss now? Go back in the forums. This is an old and dead horse kind of subject. We who were around back then and pre purchased CA got over this years ago. 

 

I can't speak about being here long enough to have pre order it, but I would argue that CA does pretty much everything the label says it can under the current version. But isn't the fuss about looking forward instead of back when it was released?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the real problem is precisely what it was designed to do.

The way I see it the whole of Combined Arms started out as a bit of a workaround for the lack of capabilities of the ground AI. Let players from an A-10 cockpit direct units on the ground to go somewhere, which makes a semi-dynamic mission more feasable than lots and lots of scripting to achieve the same.

DCS has grown since and CA has grown... very little.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2021 at 1:00 PM, Kang said:

I think the real problem is precisely what it was designed to do.

The way I see it the whole of Combined Arms started out as a bit of a workaround for the lack of capabilities of the ground AI. Let players from an A-10 cockpit direct units on the ground to go somewhere, which makes a semi-dynamic mission more feasable than lots and lots of scripting to achieve the same.

DCS has grown since and CA has grown... very little.

It's not that I disagree with your post, I'm just not sure what you mean when you say CA has grown very little. When you say DCS has grown since, how so?

I think the JTAC feature was a much bigger part of CA then pilot control of ground units, but both are equally important in terms of the offered functionality that can be used to enhance game play. But for me, CA is more about getting ground and air units (combined arms) to work together more seamlessly in a mission. With the CA module, you can design missions/campaigns that include pilot only roles, ground unit only roles, or mixed roles. And you can have as many of each role participating in a single mission as you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I can't speak about being here long enough to have pre order it, but I would argue that CA does pretty much everything the label says it can under the current version. But isn't the fuss about looking forward instead of back when it was released?"

 

 99% of the forum complaints and my personal experience prove your OPINION wrong. CA does not now, nor has it ever worked correctly.  It has been a thorn in the side of those who had any hopes at all for it from day 1. If you don't agree, please present some kind of proof of it. Never ending complaint threads and my CA that does nothing more than place stuff on the ground for target practice is more than enough to drive my point home. If you have designed functional missions using only CA and nothing else that you didn't have to Alter LUA files and rig from here to eternity, I would certainly like to try them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

It's not that I disagree with your post, I'm just not sure what you mean when you say CA has grown very little. When you say DCS has grown since, how so?

I think the JTAC feature was a much bigger part of CA then pilot control of ground units, but both are equally important in terms of the offered functionality that can be used to enhance game play. But for me, CA is more about getting ground and air units (combined arms) to work together more seamlessly in a mission. With the CA module, you can design missions/campaigns that include pilot only roles, ground unit only roles, or mixed roles. And you can have as many of each role participating in a single mission as you like.

Combined Arms comes from a time in which missions were centered on the A-10C and sometimes the Ka-50. My point is that its main use at the time was to tell allied ground forces to move to a new position from time to time, once your CAS had cleared the approach area enough, as triggering the AI to do this automatically had proven very problematic.

Nowadays, since we have a lot more modules and so on at our disposal, missions can get a whole lot more complicated than that. Furthermore, since simply functions in triggers and scripts have expanded, there are a lot of different things to do, not least because the community (as a whole, I for one am not that capable) has learned to do magical things with those since. Just look at what possibilities CTLD and the like give you.

A related prime example of how CA has definitely not kept up is that there are stumps of functions of controlling airborne troops in the radio menus since forever, but there is no real functionality there. No native dynamic way of inserting troops into combat by helicopter nor of having any basic control over their mission. Best you can do in that scenario is either have troops embark and disembark in a 'scripted' (as in: static and limited to specific spots) fashion and then follow their pre-assigned path, or switch back and forth between flying your helicopter and controlling ground troops.

I agree the JTAC functionality is a major factor, and at least from what I see most people seem to enjoy CA primarily in a 'control single vehicle' way, which is fine, but even that is terribly flawed. From the questionable physics at times (BMP high and far jump competitions are a thing), to the core of my usual CA-complaints: really old and clunky interface. Just a quick example: if you use the binoculars to operate as JTAC and you take a quick look at the map you lose your mark. Functions like changing laser code require a key binding, which is alright, that opens a window for it, which does feel a bit like Windows 3.1, but admittedly that's a matter of taste.

It does not get better if you actually want to use CA in a manner the pre-made missions suggest: to direct a whole force tactically from the map. The interface for that is just terrible. From bits of the visible interface that seem to have no effect, to inconsistencies in what units do - a classic example is whether or not vehicles decide to reload from supply trucks or not - to simply broken bits, like it sometimes becomes impossible to have your artillery units cease fire if the targeting marker happens to be right on top of an enemy unit, because you can only select the unit and not the marker then, thus giving you no way of deleting it.

At the end of the day I don't actually mean to say that Combined Arms was a bad module in every way, because it isn't. It works okay for a few things. It's just somewhat frustrating to see it having so much potential, which has only grown over the years as more and more possibilities have come to DCS, but receiving so little love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think ED are well aware of it's limits, but it seems that overcoming those need quite some rework of core elements. Matt stated at least so in this 2019 interview:

Quote

Are there any plans to expand Combined Arms? This hidden gem of a module can really alter the multiplayer landscape with a cunning user at the helm but hasn’t gained a large following.

Certainly, but before we can do so, there are other items that first need to be addressed:

  • Detailed damage model system for ground units
  • Improved ground unit AI decision making
  • New and improved ground unit effects
  • A much more detailed ground environment

The damage model will take it's time and a more detailed ground can probably only be done once the switch to Vulkan API is done.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  After Vulkan and VR support are implemented, I really hope that ED starts to concentrate on giving CA the much needed love it truly deserves.  ATM VR is totally useless in CA, which is sad because it would be very entertaining and immersive to be in any fully modeled vehicle in VR, from transport to tank, and everything in between, not to mention first person infantry for the use of manpads, JTAC, Anti Tank, Fire Teams.  Seriously why bother calling it Digital Combat Simulator?  instead of Combat Air Simulator?

  • Like 1

X570S AORUS PRO AX MOTHERBOARD, AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D 8-core Processor, GIGABYTE GEFORCE RTX 3090 TI, 64GB DDR4(Corsair Vengeance LPX), DARK ROCK PRO 4 250W TDP Heatsink, Corsair AX1600i Power Supply,  2TB SSD, Windows 10 64 Bit  VR: HP Reverb G2, VIRPIL: VPC Constellation ALPHA Prim[R], VPC MongoosT-50CM3 Throttle, VPC MongoosT-50CM3 Base

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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