Jump to content

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

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

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

 

Their comment was about “first person” infantry, not necessarily Combined Arms

  • Like 1

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Their comment was about “first person” infantry, not necessarily Combined Arms

While I think fps infantry will never happen. I still agree with the sentiment in regards to land and naval modules. Let's get some playable battleships and better tanks.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

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

 

CA has featured complete, if you like some more realistic you claim ED put money, resources and technology on someone with none planed. Any update require planning, time and making changes on the core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

The bare minimum would be an update that fixes the vr.

IMHO CA in its current state is unworthy of an ED title, and it seems to me to be some bad-faith work that was turned in by a sullen intern. Behold on one hand these meticulously crafted, finely honed wonders of simulation technology, lovingly focusing on a single airframe, and delivered with best-of-class VR. And on the other hand we have a haphazardly slapped together, ramshackle non-standard grab-bag of various "simulated" units that ignore basic physics (yeah, as mentioned, a slender birch tree stops a Leo dead in its tracks - even if said Leo slams into it at incredibly unrealistic 200+ km/h) and come with one of the worst VR integrations this side of the release cycle.

CA is a bad stain on ED's otherwise stellar record (I'm turning a blind eye on the Hawk here, as that was only partially ED's fault) and should be scrapped altogether. Of course I'll buy a CA II module (I am a DCS junkie after all) - hope springs eternal. But CA in its current form? I don't think it can be saved. 

Bare minimum for a CA update would be a completely new module. With full VR support, real game integration (slots, not taking command via Map), good physics modelling, and a damage model that's worthy of that name.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cfrag said:

IMHO CA in its current state is unworthy of an ED title, and it seems to me to be some bad-faith work that was turned in by a sullen intern. Behold on one hand these meticulously crafted, finely honed wonders of simulation technology, lovingly focusing on a single airframe, and delivered with best-of-class VR. And on the other hand we have a haphazardly slapped together, ramshackle non-standard grab-bag of various "simulated" units that ignore basic physics (yeah, as mentioned, a slender birch tree stops a Leo dead in its tracks - even if said Leo slams into it at incredibly unrealistic 200+ km/h) and come with one of the worst VR integrations this side of the release cycle.

CA is a bad stain on ED's otherwise stellar record (I'm turning a blind eye on the Hawk here, as that was only partially ED's fault) and should be scrapped altogether. Of course I'll buy a CA II module (I am a DCS junkie after all) - hope springs eternal. But CA in its current form? I don't think it can be saved. 

Bare minimum for a CA update would be a completely new module. With full VR support, real game integration (slots, not taking command via Map), good physics modelling, and a damage model that's worthy of that name.   

Actually I agree that is what it will take. Though I stand fully by my statement that Eagle needs to do Combined Arms II as several modules focused on theater and era. 

54 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

CA has featured complete, if you like some more realistic you claim ED put money, resources and technology on someone with none planed. Any update require planning, time and making changes on the core.

I know that, which is why I am asking for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours 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. 

 

17 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Their comment was about “first person” infantry, not necessarily Combined Arms

Don't know if you noticed, but you never answered my question, and now your judging someone else for not answering a question that wasn't stated. Even if the OP meant FPS, his request on the wish list doesn't state that explicitly. He simply said full fidelity ground units using proper infantry. Proper infantry can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people.

I didn't respond to your post the first time around because it would be taking the discussion in a direction it doesn't need to go, but just wanted to make sure you are aware of the above. I do get your point though regarding ED and their installed user base.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

CA has featured complete, if you like some more realistic you claim ED put money, resources and technology on someone with none planed. Any update require planning, time and making changes on the core.

I agree Silver, CA does what it is advertised as being able to do, and I think as a module it has gotten a bad wrap because it actually does a lot of them really well. Some of those features however don't work properly, while others could use improvements.

But weren't you the one that posted something about planned updates to the things we are discussing here? The thing being discussed here is not really different then the tens of thousands of posts that are discussing the same thing for other modules.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, cfrag said:

IMHO CA in its current state is unworthy of an ED title, and it seems to me to be some bad-faith work that was turned in by a sullen intern. Behold on one hand these meticulously crafted, finely honed wonders of simulation technology, lovingly focusing on a single airframe, and delivered with best-of-class VR. And on the other hand we have a haphazardly slapped together, ramshackle non-standard grab-bag of various "simulated" units that ignore basic physics (yeah, as mentioned, a slender birch tree stops a Leo dead in its tracks - even if said Leo slams into it at incredibly unrealistic 200+ km/h) and come with one of the worst VR integrations this side of the release cycle.

CA is a bad stain on ED's otherwise stellar record (I'm turning a blind eye on the Hawk here, as that was only partially ED's fault) and should be scrapped altogether. Of course I'll buy a CA II module (I am a DCS junkie after all) - hope springs eternal. But CA in its current form? I don't think it can be saved. 

Bare minimum for a CA update would be a completely new module. With full VR support, real game integration (slots, not taking command via Map), good physics modelling, and a damage model that's worthy of that name.   

Well said, except you left me wondering if you aren't going between what needs to be fixed, and what could/should be added. VR support is clearly stated as not being currently supported in CA. The impression that leaves at least me with, if not the entire community, is that it is planned. But yeah there does seem to be a bit of what you are suggesting. One day their planning on fixing it, and the next day they aren't. Wonder what's behind the influence with that?


Edited by Callsign112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Even if the OP meant FPS, his request on the wish list doesn't state that explicitly.

The title says “like cod arma and battlefield” Those are first-person shooter games


Edited by SharpeXB
  • Like 1

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Well said, except you left me wondering if you aren't going between what needs to be fixed, and what could/should be added. VR support is clearly stated as not being currently supported in CA. The impression that leaves at least me with, if not the entire community, is that it is planned. But yeah there does seem to be a bit of what you are suggesting. One day their planning on fixing it, and the next day they aren't. Wonder what's behind the influence with that?

 

No, idea. I just wish they would do Combined Arms II and give us a decent tank sim. As  I have stated before if we get Combined Arms II I would love it if they broke it up into multiple modules based on theater/era as a way to solve the asset problem. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

I agree Silver, CA does what it is advertised as being able to do, and I think as a module it has gotten a bad wrap because it actually does a lot of them really well. Some of those features however don't work properly, while others could use improvements.

But weren't you the one that posted something about planned updates to the things we are discussing here? The thing being discussed here is not really different then the tens of thousands of posts that are discussing the same thing for other modules.

 

The main problem of the "planned updates" about CA was talked by ED near 5-6 years ago..... ED never has talk more about them or confirm any on progress about them o any new or start develop something, the same situation with the vehicle interiors talked by Wags years ago, nothing. The same situation was pass on the russian forum by the continious questions about CA only none on progress.

I maintan them on the "unoficial roadmap" meanwhile ED dont talk anything about them or the a update of a CA future or something totally diferent.

Only a detail, the new infantry on progress has none to do with CA, has on progress by Minsk Mocap team with build the Carrier Crew.


Edited by Silver_Dragon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

The title says “like cod arma and battlefield” Those are first-person shooter games

…and if you read how that “like” is used — what it is referring to — you'll quickly notice that there is no suggestion that the ground unit component should be an FPS. The first time it is even mentioned is when you bring it up, not the OP. So that's just something you invented by (as always) not reading properly and instead just conjuring up something that was never asked for just so you have something to complain about.

  • Like 1

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The main problem of the "planned updates" about CA was talked by ED near 5-6 years ago..... ED never has talk more about them or confirm any on progress about them o any new or start develop something, the same situation with the vehicle interiors talked by Wags years ago, nothing. The same situation was pass on the russian forum by the continious questions about CA only none on progress.

I maintan them on the "unoficial roadmap" meanwhile ED dont talk anything about them or the a update of a CA future or something totally diferent.

Only a detail, the new infantry on progress has none to do with CA, has on progress by Minsk Mocap team with build the Carrier Crew.

 

that's sad. I think more combined arms would be awesome espeically if we get more details to the vehicles and they replace asset packs

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The title says “like cod arma and battlefield” Those are first-person shooter games

 

I think it has already been well explained, but to demonstrate, just add the "will fall" part that you left out. Anyway you make a good point, your a Vpilot and you don't want ED to cater to anyone else but Vpilots. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, I'm just saying as another Vpilot that I would like to see the digital combat simulator simulate actual combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The main problem of the "planned updates" about CA was talked by ED near 5-6 years ago..... ED never has talk more about them or confirm any on progress about them o any new or start develop something, the same situation with the vehicle interiors talked by Wags years ago, nothing. The same situation was pass on the russian forum by the continious questions about CA only none on progress.

I maintan them on the "unoficial roadmap" meanwhile ED dont talk anything about them or the a update of a CA future or something totally diferent.

Only a detail, the new infantry on progress has none to do with CA, has on progress by Minsk Mocap team with build the Carrier Crew.

 

That is all good Silver, and I am not in disagreement with you. As I have said in numerous posts before, I really appreciate the insight you offer and the efforts you make for this community. I am not speaking for anyone else, but I am pretty sure there are a lot of people here that feel the same way.

You and I do not ED make! The onus is on ED to live up to any stated intentions. This is just a wish list thread where we are discussing a wish. That being improvements to the CA module.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

Anyway you make a good point, your a Vpilot and you don't want ED to cater to anyone else but Vpilots. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, I'm just saying as another Vpilot that I would like to see the digital combat simulator simulate actual combat.

Not necessarily. I like the depth that CA brings to MP especially when doing CAS. I’m not sure how much CA actually contributes to the ground war action in MP though. But if it does, then that’s great. 

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Not necessarily. I like the depth that CA brings to MP especially when doing CAS. I’m not sure how much CA actually contributes to the ground war action in MP though. But if it does, then that’s great. 

Anything that would improve the ground or naval aspects of dcs would also improve things for the vpilots.  Especially if Eagle is planning the dynamic campaign. I think we should focus more on what improvements we want instead of going in circles about the fact we need them.


Edited by upyr1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

Anything that would improve the ground or naval aspects of dcs would also improve things for the vpilots.  Especially if Eagle is planning the dynamic campaign. I think we should focus more on what improvements we want instead of going in circles about the fact we need them.

 

Amen!  :santa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Anything that would improve the ground or naval aspects of dcs would also improve things for the vpilots.  Especially if Eagle is planning the dynamic campaign. I think we should focus more on what improvements we want instead of going in circles about the fact we need them.

 

You've had plenty of excellent points in this thread, liked them all whenever it felt pertinent to me or the evolution of CA. We can only hope that one day Combined Arms gets overhauled big time 🙂

 

I made a few posts regarding CA on different threads throughout time, simply giving my opinion on CA as it stands, or talking about things i wish would someday be made possible.

One thing though that keeps coming back to me when reading threads like this one and some of your responses is me wondering if ED has something planned with CA in the future dynamic campaign. If they have planned to allow CA owners to use it in the dynamic campaign in a much more complete or should i say interesting way ?

 

As it stands right now, CA is either used in SP inside missions created with a clear focus and insentive to using it or inside MP missions made once again in a manner that CA has a clear purpose to whoever would come to use it. There isn't really an inbetween level where one could simply be like "Hey, today i feel like driving a tank platoon through the frontline, or how about taking control of this vehicle over there and using it to do this."

What i'm trying to say here is that from what we know so far about the dynamic campaign, well things are gonna be dynamic unlike the very static battlefiels we have in the very vast majority of missions, SP or MP. Which makes me think, if while going through my dynamic campaign, i decide to stop flying for a bit and instead take control of a ground unit moving in a group on the frontline to simply play it myself first hand, would that be possible ? And in a way that doesn't break AI logic for the rest of the group still moving ?

 

I just hope CA is gonna be well implemented to work with the dynamic campaign, clearly creating an insentive to owning it and using it during those dynamic campaigns, just as much as in SP or MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, SparxOne said:

You've had plenty of excellent points in this thread, liked them all whenever it felt pertinent to me or the evolution of CA. We can only hope that one day Combined Arms gets overhauled big time 🙂

 

I made a few posts regarding CA on different threads throughout time, simply giving my opinion on CA as it stands, or talking about things i wish would someday be made possible.

One thing though that keeps coming back to me when reading threads like this one and some of your responses is me wondering if ED has something planned with CA in the future dynamic campaign. If they have planned to allow CA owners to use it in the dynamic campaign in a much more complete or should i say interesting way ?

 

As it stands right now, CA is either used in SP inside missions created with a clear focus and insentive to using it or inside MP missions made once again in a manner that CA has a clear purpose to whoever would come to use it. There isn't really an inbetween level where one could simply be like "Hey, today i feel like driving a tank platoon through the frontline, or how about taking control of this vehicle over there and using it to do this."

What i'm trying to say here is that from what we know so far about the dynamic campaign, well things are gonna be dynamic unlike the very static battlefiels we have in the very vast majority of missions, SP or MP. Which makes me think, if while going through my dynamic campaign, i decide to stop flying for a bit and instead take control of a ground unit moving in a group on the frontline to simply play it myself first hand, would that be possible ? And in a way that doesn't break AI logic for the rest of the group still moving ?

 

I just hope CA is gonna be well implemented to work with the dynamic campaign, clearly creating an insentive to owning it and using it during those dynamic campaigns, just as much as in SP or MP.

+1 Very good post, you touch on what I think is the key issue with CA,... its use.

In SP where you are not in competition with anyone, the best thing to do obviously is to include a single Game Master slot so that you can control both red and blue teams as you see fit. You could include any of the other slots including "Pilot can control" if you want to challenge yourself in a certain way, but as a single player you basically own the map. I think the intended purpose of the Game Master slot though is for teaching. You could use the Game Master slot to observe and instruct/interact with real players that are either working together against Ai forces, or battling each other. 

But I think where CA can really make a difference is in MP, whether that is setting up a 1v1 to play with a friend, or a much larger group split into two teams, or working in unison against Ai forces. I am not including a MP server where people can join randomly on either side because I am not sure it has been refined enough to work in this environment. I am not a MP player so I don't know for sure, but based on what others are reporting that seems to be the case. Although the recently announced WWII server put up by a well known YouTuber might be a good reason why it should be implemented as an important part of that environment too.

But going back to your point about dynamic campaigns and the ability to stop flying, hop in a tank to do a certain objective, then hop into something else to do another thing and so on, you can actually already do that in the CA we have today.

All you have to do is include the type of slots to meet the needs of the mission you are trying to build.

Whether the mission is 1v1, or 10v10, or any number vs Ai, simply include the slots for the number of intended players with the mission objectives in mind. If you want vPilot players to also be able to control ground units, make sure the appropriate box is selected in the same CA screen you are assigning the slots in. If you want vPilots to be able to join as just a pilot in the mission, then simply include the number of needed aircraft in the mission editor and make sure that you have them set to either client or player.

You are probably well aware of this, but for anyone new, or hasn't actually used CA:

-Game Master slot allows you to take direct control of all units on the map from both teams (red and blue). Can also control all units red and blue from the F10 map (set path and speed/assign targets). The Game Master can also see all units even when fog of war is turned on.

-Tactical Commander slot allows you to take direct control of all units from your own coalition. Can also control all units from same coalition on the F10 map. The Tactical Commander cannot see enemy units until spotted when fog of war is turned on. 

-JTAC/Operator slot allows you to take direct control of same coalition units only. This slot cannot control any units from the F10 map, and cannot see enemy units until spotted when fog of war is turned on.

-Regardless of the slot being occupied, when directly controlling a unit that is part of a group, you can control the other vehicles in the group by accessing the command menu with the "/" key, or using the group command using the "G" key.  

To answer your question regarding direct control of Ai units and how it affects the Ai logic:

-For groups of vehicles that have been given predefined way points to follow in the mission editor, if you take direct control of the lead unit (#1 icon in its lable) and then leave it to take control of another unit, the predefined way points assigned in the mission editor will be cancelled and the group of vehicles will remain in the same spot the player left them. You would have to either take direct control again to move them to another location on the map, or reassign way points to the group from the F10 map as either a Game Master, or Tactical Commander. If you take direct control of a vehicle in a group other than the group lead and then leave it to take control of another unit, the vehicle you just left will follow the predefined way points again to rejoin its group. In other words, taking direct control of a groups lead vehicle cancels any predefined way points. Taking control of any non-group leads will allow the unit to rejoin its group after you give up control.

And this takes us back to your point about CA use. CA actually has a very powerful interface in terms of supporting missions/game play. The user has to take the time to consider how CA plugs into the actual event of game play in order to understand this.

If you want a 3v3 group of players to only battle each other from in-game so that each player remains invisible to his opponents until contact is made, then you would obviously want to set the mission up to include 3 blue and 3 red JTAC/Operator slots with fog of war turned on.

If the desire is to give one player on each team the ability to respond tactically from the F10 map so that he/she can move forces around as the battle develops, then you would add 1 Tactical Commander slot and 2 JTAC/Operator slots for each team. This is probably overstating the obvious, but the point is CA is a very well thought out part of DCS and its ability to add real depth to game play I feel is underutilized/misunderstood. 


Edited by Callsign112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2021 at 1:48 PM, upyr1 said:

...Dcs players don't want asset packs since they make on line play more difficult however we need more cold war assets...

 

I think upyr1 is pointing out what has been repeated by so many here, and I get why people would feel like that. You buy an F18 and a map to fly it on correctly expecting that you should be able to do just that, and you can actually in SP mode. The problem starts when you want to enter a MP server that has assets added.

So the source of the emotions that erupt when you seemingly can't fly the jet you bought on the map you bought to fly it on, even though it is a MP setting is understandable, but is it reasonable? You wouldn't boycott a company that manufactures SUV's just because they allow some drivers to go off road, just like you wouldn't expect Chevy to throw in a Blazer just because you bought a Corvette.

I think the questions these type of discussions really need to address should be more about what we all want/expect DCS World to look like, and less about whether we think assets should be a standalone product, packaged with something else, or made for free.

So the question I would like to ask the community is regardless of whether you purchased a single module, all of them, or non, do you want/expect DCS World to continue improving in areas such as special effects for explosions of land and buildings, sounds, Ai behavior, map texture, VR support, number and type of Ai assets available, weather, lighting, damage/collision models ect...

Note: I have not included the plane/helicopter modules on purpose to avoid anyone who purchases a flying module from raising the argument that they feel they are entitled to improvements and add-ons to their purchased module.

But if you answered yes to even just one of the above items, then I would encourage you to consider how you expect your desired improvement to come about?

Is it fair for anyone to buy a single/map, and then expect that the entire rest of the digital combat simulator should not only be provided for free, but the whole kit is expected to improve and get more and more immersive with each update. Just the maintenance issues alone for any given map are a considerable undertaking, I don't see how we as a community could possibly expect all the assets needed to populate those maps to make them real immersive environments would be added for free. 


Edited by Callsign112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

I think upyr1 is pointing out what has been repeated by so many here, and I get why people would feel like that. You buy an F18 and a map to fly it on correctly expecting that you should be able to do just that, and you can actually in SP mode. The problem starts when you want to enter a MP server that has assets added.

So the source of the emotions that erupts when you seemingly can't fly the jet you bought on the map you bought to fly it on, even though it is a MP setting is understandable but is it reasonable? You wouldn't boycott a company that manufactures SUV's just because they allow some drivers to go off road, just like you wouldn't expect Chevy to throw in a Blazer just because you bought a Corvette.

I think the questions these type of discussions really need to address should be more about what we all want/expect DCS World to look like, and less about whether we think assets should be a standalone product, packaged with something else, or made for free.

So the question I would like to ask the community is regardless of whether you purchased a single module, all of them, or non, do you want/expect DCS World to continue improving in areas such as special effects for explosions of land and buildings, sounds, Ai behavior, map texture, VR support, number and type of Ai assets available, weather, lighting, damage/collision models ect...

Note: I have not included the plane/helicopter modules on purpose to avoid anyone who purchases a flying module from raising the argument that they feel they are entitled to improvements and add-ons to their purchased module.

But if you answered yes to even just one of the above items, then I would encourage you to consider how you expect your desired improvement to come about?

Is it fair for anyone to buy a single/map, and then expect that the entire rest of the digital combat simulator should not only be provided for free, but the whole kit is expected to improve and get more and more immersive with each update. Just the maintenance issues alone for any given map are a considerable undertaking, I don't see how we as a community could possibly expect all the assets needed to populate those maps to make them real immersive environments would be added for free. 

This is the reason I keep going on about the need for more land and Naval modules.  Not only do I think it would cover the cost of developing said assets but also DCS is supposed to be air, land , and sea combat and these last two elements are lacking especially the sea. It costs time and money to develop anything so it is important to ask how might a playable module fix an aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

This is the reason I keep going on about the need for more land and Naval modules.  Not only do I think it would cover the cost of developing said assets but also DCS is supposed to be air, land , and sea combat and these last two elements are lacking especially the sea. It costs time and money to develop anything so it is important to ask how might a playable module fix an aspect.

+1 and I agree with your view point, but what all of these discussions boil down to is really just a question of the business model ED uses. For me it really wouldn't matter if they package assets with another module, or sell them separately, I would still have to support it if I want to see DCS World continue to grow.

When I first got into DCS, I looked at the cost of the maps and tech packs as the price of admission. Yes there is a lot of value and enjoyment that can be had by simply downloading the free to play base game, but 2 free maps and 2 free planes wouldn't be enough for me. I couldn't use DCS World the way I want without the add-on maps and tech packs I purchased. 

But I fully agree with you, and think we are really saying the same thing in 2 slightly different ways. Regardless of how the chargeable features are presented to the public, it is ultimately the level of community support of those features that will secure their development. Maybe that is why the we often hear about the need for military clients, because general public support by itself isn't enough to see things through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An infantry player costs ~ as much performance as an aircraft. Therefore you could have a 128 player battle with 127 infantry and one aircraft... 

Because the REAL technical limitation is NETWORK LATENCY. Everything else can be overcome regarding GPU, CPU or memory. But the Internet has real physical limitations, it's extensively discussed in this article:

https://www.matthewball.vc/all/networkingmetaverse


Edited by winghunter

DCS Web Editor - New 3D Mission Editor for DCS that runs in your browser

DCS Web Viewer free browser based mission planner / viewer

dcs web editor new(2).png
4090 RTX, 13700KF, water cooled

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, winghunter said:

Because the REAL technical limitation is NETWORK LATENCY

Ummm. How can you link to that great article and get it exactly wrong? Latency (nor Bandwidth, for that matter) isn't the issue with DCS at all. Most of us have a network ping of 10 to 15 when we play, latency is a non-issue (all our packets are driving Porsches, they are fast enough. A ping of 10 means we can synch at 40 fps and more). We can push 1 gbps or more at low ping, so bandwidth is also not a factor (our packets have the capacity to carry as much as a Crude Oil Tanker and drive as fast as a race car). Also, in DCS case, we have a Fortnite analogon (not the MSFS shared world) - every player is in the same arena, no arena data needs to be transferred. Therefore, packets are reasonably small - ED did a great job designing the network stuff. Network is not the limiting factor in DCS. It's the CPU performance that is required to task and manage 1000s of units and munitions that drag down the single CPU core currently available. You can easily reproduce this by placing a couple of thousand groups on the Caucaus map near Batumi, and tell them to drive to Sukhumi via roads and have enemy forces come from there to Batumi. See your CPU tank - especially when munitions start to fly. No network required - a clear indication that our games currently are not network bound. 

So yes, I agree, that if Moore's law holds, CPU will get faster. Unfortunately, also Wirth's law applies: software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster. Even on stand-alone servers (that don't do any graphics processing), the multiple layers of OS, virtualization/sandboxing, memory management, external frameworks etc and increasing demand for more precise data (weather modelling, terrain grids, weapon modelling for cluster bombs and bullets) virtually guarantees that. The fact that DCS currently only utilizes a few cores doesn't help. But the point in time when DCS becomes network bound (latency or bandwidth) is far off in the future.


Edited by cfrag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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