Full fidelity ground units using proper infantry will make dcs so emmersive that everything like cod arma and battlefield will fall. Imagine ground units calling strike.

[No.20Raka]

Wishlist

[Killshot0597]

I guess I'll be the first to say but, DCS isn't really the kind of game for that. It'd be cool yes but the focus should be with aircraft and there is still a lot to be done that is needed more than turning DCS into an FPS.

You can already do JTAC stuff with Combined Arms just fine.

[razo+r]

In what kind of utopia do you live?

 

To elaborate: Squad does not replace Bf, Bf, does not replace COD, COD does not replace CS etc.

 

Nothing against your wish but have some common sense before posting with a imensly long title/statenent like that.

Edited November 30, 2021 by razo+r

[Nipil]

Now imagine how technically difficult it would be to make a proper FPS out of DCS. And how poor will performance be. The engine of DCS is just not suited for this.

There is a reason why there isn't a simulator of everything on the market. It's technically impossible to create one, even for giants like EA, Ubisoft and others who have billions of dollars at their disposal. 

[Tank50us]

3 hours ago, Nipil said:

There is a reason why there isn't a simulator of everything on the market. It's technically impossible to create one, even for giants like EA, Ubisoft and others who have billions of dollars at their disposal.

I'd argue that it is possible, the challenge is creating an engine that'll run it smoothly, and then marketing it to the right crowd. The main issue however, is Time To Engagement, or, how long it takes from the moment you spawn to the moment you get to do anything of note. Which, for a fighter jet like an F-16, I think averages out to about 20 minutes or less. A rifleman by contrast would be riding a truck or in an APC for a good couple hours before they actually got into the fight, at which point some f---ing camping b---h (IT'S A LEGITAMATE STRATEGY!) pops'em with a .50cal AMR, and it's back to the spawn point to do it all over again. Not exactly a fun thing for most people to do, especially when most of the people who play DCS might only have a couple hours at most to play the game per week.

So, in short: possible to make, good luck marketing it.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

It'd be nice to get some full-fidelity armor simulation, ED hasn't defined DCS as one particular platform or time period. However, turning it into an infantry sim is a bridge too far.

[No.20Raka]

On 11/30/2021 at 4:14 PM, razo+r said:

In what kind of utopia do you live?

 

To elaborate: Squad does not replace Bf, Bf, does not replace COD, COD does not replace CS etc.

 

Nothing against your wish but have some common sense before posting with a imensly long title/statenent like that.

 

[rwbishUP]

I've thought about this a lot, and I know it's unreasonable and a daydream. But, could you imagine how incredible that would be, to integrate a ground warfare simulator with DCS? One that had about the same level of fidelity and attention to functionality as DCS. Well, created by ED. Actual players as the majority of ground forces. Comms calling for CAS, CAP, SEAD, etc.. That would be phenomenal!

[Taz1004]

You can possibly have different games talk to each other.  Games can output data and communication real time.  If someone playing ground unit FPS game calls for air strike, that command can be imported into DCS to trigger a radio message.  Then simple flight and weapon trajectory can be exported back to the FPS game.  In a way DCS already does this on Multiplayer.  Sending and receiving data between clients.

Doesn't even need to be same game engine as long as it can translate the data.  Detail level of the maps don't have to match perfectly but needs to be fairly close however.  You wouldn't be able to communicate description of the target but only through coordinates and smoke markers etc.

But again, a wishlist.  Just need a 3rd party developer   Or could be part of dynamic campaign.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Taz1004

[upyr1]

On 11/30/2021 at 4:37 AM, KIllshot0597 said:

I guess I'll be the first to say but, DCS isn't really the kind of game for that. It'd be cool yes but the focus should be with aircraft and there is still a lot to be done that is needed more than turning DCS into an FPS.

You can already do JTAC stuff with Combined Arms just fine.

I'm just going to point out DCS is Digital combat simulator, so as long as the ground combat element is realistic I don't see a problem from that angle. The problem I see though is that to get infantry up to a realistic level you will have to do a massive overhaul to the maps so that players can go inside buildings and fight in fortified positions. I'd put this down as a long term dream. I don't know if it will be possible but I do think some aspects of the dream should be implemented mainly better ground AI and units especially drivable ones. 

10 hours ago, rwbishUP said:

I've thought about this a lot, and I know it's unreasonable and a daydream. But, could you imagine how incredible that would be, to integrate a ground warfare simulator with DCS? One that had about the same level of fidelity and attention to functionality as DCS. Well, created by ED. Actual players as the majority of ground forces. Comms calling for CAS, CAP, SEAD, etc.. That would be phenomenal!

I agree it would be awesome but even though it might be unreasonable doesn't change the fact IMHO Eagle should be asking the question how to improve the ground environment

[Silver_Dragon]

21 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I'm just going to point out DCS is Digital combat simulator, so as long as the ground combat element is realistic I don't see a problem from that angle. The problem I see though is that to get infantry up to a realistic level you will have to do a massive overhaul to the maps so that players can go inside buildings and fight in fortified positions. I'd put this down as a long term dream. I don't know if it will be possible but I do think some aspects of the dream should be implemented mainly better ground AI and units especially drivable ones. 

I agree it would be awesome but even though it might be unreasonable doesn't change the fact IMHO Eagle should be asking the question how to improve the ground environment

Improve the ground enviroment has not get a FPS. Has more posibilities to get a "tank simulator" as some others with convert that on a other FPS simulator... by that need rewrite part of the graphic engine and build a complete and permanent "Ground vehicle team" to build the pilars of the ground vehicles and later make a FPS team to start to work on the all phisics, AI and funtionality of a FPS.

Only has a remark, by Simon or Wags on later interviews, ED only make a FPS if a military client has interesting on them into the simulator. Remember CA coming from a old JTAC trainer to the UK Army.

[upyr1]

14 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Improve the ground enviroment has not get a FPS. Has more posibilities to get a "tank simulator" as some others with convert that on a other FPS simulator... by that need rewrite part of the graphic engine and build a complete and permanent "Ground vehicle team" to build the pilars of the ground vehicles and later make a FPS team to start to work on the all phisics, AI and funtionality of a FPS.

Only has a remark, by Simon or Wags on later interviews, ED only make a FPS if a military client has interesting on them into the simulator. Remember CA coming from a old JTAC trainer to the UK Army.

No argument here, as I stated the problem with an infantry module is the fact it will take a massive overhaul to do right. So until someone is willing to fork over the cash, I'd be happy with ground units especially drivable vehicles and better ground AI.

[Silver_Dragon]

15 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

No argument here, as I stated the problem with an infantry module is the fact it will take a massive overhaul to do right. So until someone is willing to fork over the cash, I'd be happy with ground units especially drivable vehicles and better ground AI.

Actually has none as "drivable vehicles".... only a ugly camera without none interior or a mask to simulate them and a very old phisics with need a urgent rebuild.

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

No argument here, as I stated the problem with an infantry module is the fact it will take a massive overhaul to do right. So until someone is willing to fork over the cash, I'd be happy with ground units especially drivable vehicles and better ground AI.

And let's not forget the trees.... it's quite amusing to see a sapling stop a 65 ton M1A2 and force the AI to go "Uhm....." when in reality that tank would crush that small tree like it was nothing.

[Silver_Dragon]

16 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

And let's not forget the trees.... it's quite amusing to see a sapling stop a 65 ton M1A2 and force the AI to go "Uhm....." when in reality that tank would crush that small tree like it was nothing.

trees with never was a damage model...

[Tank50us]

8 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

trees with never was a damage model...

They could certainly use a DM.... it's particularly interesting to watch a 2,000lb Bunker Busting GPS Guided Bomb or a Maverick get stopped by a tree branch

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Actually has none as "drivable vehicles".... only a ugly camera without none interior or a mask to simulate them and a very old phisics with need a urgent rebuild.

That is why I am always going on about the need for combined arms 2

[Mogster]

A FPS element in the DCS engine would be a whole new title. Without the necessary resources you’d just have an excellent flight sim with a crap FPS tagged on. Reference Elite Dangerous, excellent space sim now with crap FPS tagged on…

[LetMePickThat]

9 minutes ago, Mogster said:

A FPS element in the DCS engine would be a whole new title. Without the necessary resources you’d just have an excellent flight sim with a crap FPS tagged on. Reference Elite Dangerous, excellent space sim now with crap FPS tagged on…

No need to look at other games to illustrate that. Combined Arms is the perfect example of why specialized game engines make it very difficult to implement anything but what said engines were designed for.

1 hour ago, Tank50us said:

And let's not forget the trees.... it's quite amusing to see a sapling stop a 65 ton M1A2 and force the AI to go "Uhm....." when in reality that tank would crush that small tree like it was nothing.

They did some progress on that front, tho.

On Syria, you can crush walls or barricades if your vehicle is powerful enough, for instance. It's far from being perfect, but it's better than nothing.

[Silver_Dragon]

59 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

That is why I am always going on about the need for combined arms 2

I continue waiting ED confirm someday a CA2..... or a big update, meanwhile only we can dream.

[Callsign112]

On 11/30/2021 at 5:37 AM, KIllshot0597 said:

I guess I'll be the first to say but, DCS isn't really the kind of game for that. It'd be cool yes but the focus should be with aircraft and there is still a lot to be done that is needed more than turning DCS into an FPS.

You can already do JTAC stuff with Combined Arms just fine.

Everyone here seems to have jumped the OP for wanting an FPS, but what I read is full fidelity ground units using proper infantry. The OP doesn't really explain what is meant by "proper infantry".

Proper infantry for me would be the Ai infantry we already have, but with more functionality. Nothing ground breaking there, and it certainly wouldn't require an entire rewrite of graphics engines...

But infantry aside, in terms of the kind of game DCS is, ground/sea/air units can already co-exist on the same map at the same time. You can shoot at me with your ground attack aircraft, and I can shoot back at you while driving a vehicle equipped with surface-to-air capabilities. I get why the bold text above is the main concern for most here, but why should the focus be just aircraft? Why shouldn't the focus include helicopters and the other ground elements they come in close contact with?  

The simple fact is, it's not a matter of being possible, it is a matter of the amount of time put into making it happen. There is a long list of outstanding issues with some of the DCS plane models. They are not outstanding issues because it was not possible to solve them, they are outstanding issues because ED has not been able to take the time to address them yet.

[upyr1]

7 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Everyone here seems to have jumped the OP for wanting an FPS, but what I read is full fidelity ground units using proper infantry. The OP doesn't really explain what is meant by "proper infantry".

Proper infantry for me would be the Ai infantry we already have, but with more functionality. Nothing ground breaking there, and it certainly wouldn't require an entire rewrite of graphics engines...

But infantry aside, in terms of the kind of game DCS is, ground/sea/air units can already co-exist on the same map at the same time. You can shoot at me with your ground attack aircraft, and I can shoot back at you while driving a vehicle equipped with surface-to-air capabilities. I get why the bold text above is the main concern for most here, but why should the focus be just aircraft? Why shouldn't the focus include helicopters and the other ground elements they come in close contact with?  

The simple fact is, it's not a matter of being possible, it is a matter of the amount of time put into making it happen. There is a long list of outstanding issues with some of the DCS plane models. They are not outstanding issues because it was not possible to solve them, they are outstanding issues because ED has not been able to take the time to address them yet.

I suspect the OP might be in the same boat. I could be wrong, but if I am, it would be irrelevant to the real question which is how to improve the DCS ground environment we have now. Even if we can never play as infantry doesn't mean we can't have properly equipped grunts fighting intelligently alongside their APC and IFV.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

why should the focus be just aircraft?

Because so far it seems that this is what ED’s  military partners have paid them to do. I recall they have stated they have no plans for a “FPS” style game unless one of those parters asked them to. 

[Tippis]

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Because so far it seems that this is what ED’s  military partners have paid them to do. I recall they have stated they have no plans for a “FPS” style game unless one of those parters asked them to. 

Put another way, there shouldn't be any particular focus on aircraft — it can be anything, as long as it brings in the cash.

[upyr1]

20 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Because so far it seems that this is what ED’s  military partners have paid them to do. I recall they have stated they have no plans for a “FPS” style game unless one of those parters asked them to. 

We already have combined arms so as a civilian consumer I am asking for improvements there. The bare minimum would be an update that fixes the vr. Though I will state I think combined arms modules would be a good way around the asset pack problem. Dcs players don't want asset packs since they make on line play more difficult however we need more cold war assets. So my answer make a ground module featuring drivable assets we lack. The ai only will be free but those of us interested in tanks will buy it to drive the tanks. They could do the same for ships too

Edited December 16, 2021 by upyr1