Work on Combined Arms

[Callsign112]

14 hours ago, NineLine said:

Not working or not correct, remember we are not doing a 1:1 simulation of tanks, but if you have ideas to make it better, then let me know. I have already asked for and we are getting the proper zoom levels for FLIR on the Abrams and Stryker. 

 

Yes, ready racks, as I said, this is reported and I hope to see something soon. On the priority list it isnt as high as many would like, but it is getting action already. 

Once again, we have low-fidelity DMing on ground units, we do have damage that reduces mobility and weapon usage, but these are band aids till we can get something better.

Again, this was never the scope of the original CA, but it is and I would like to see it expand even more, saying there is very little to show in 11 years is misinformation in that it wasnt intended to do anymore than the original feature set which was complete at the time of release. Now it continues to expand and grow, not as fast as you or anyone may want, but it does. This included many things you specifically asked for. 

I know it has been pointed out a number of times already, but I am highlighting it here again to emphasize the fact that it is easy to get confused with exactly what is and what isn't a CA issue.

"Again, this was never the scope of the original CA, but it is and I would like to see it expand even more, saying there is very little to show in 11 years is misinformation in that it wasnt intended to do anymore than the original feature set which was complete at the time of release."

I personally really like the CA module, and appreciate the massive potential it holds. I can also appreciate that it continues to be updated. My biggest complaint would be the amount of time it takes, but that is an issue affecting more than just the CA module.  

[Silver_Dragon]

14 hours ago, Stratos said:

Nineline can we have an update on new infantry behaviour? pinned and supressed infantry, running for cover o9r something like this will be amazing. Also something new about the sniper AI gunners on those APC?

That can be a core and AI update, added to a new amimations. ED has planned them, will be to long range.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Silver_Dragon

[NineLine]

5 hours ago, draconus said:

Is it in official plans? Or just a wishlist item?

You said something is cooking for CA - can we get at least a list of what is planned for CA short and long term?

VR, that I know of is not being worked on yet, its not really a wishlist item, its more of an item we would like to do when time allows. So the only wish is for the time to do it.

[NineLine]

6 hours ago, Stratos said:

Nineline can we have an update on new infantry behaviour? pinned and supressed infantry, running for cover o9r something like this will be amazing. Also something new about the sniper AI gunners on those APC?

I cannot share too much right now, its in our internal builds but not finished yet, I have done some basic testing and my own round of bug reporting and requesting for improvements.

[mmarques]

4 hours ago, NineLine said:

I cannot share too much right now, its in our internal builds but not finished yet, I have done some basic testing and my own round of bug reporting and requesting for improvements.

Will it still be individual infantry units or was there some kind of move to squad based units?

[Stratos]

16 hours ago, NineLine said:

I cannot share too much right now, its in our internal builds but not finished yet, I have done some basic testing and my own round of bug reporting and requesting for improvements.

Hope it doesn't take too long, is really long overdue.

[Apocalypse31]

@NineLine Thanks for your support pushing this forward.

 

Quote

 

DCS: Combined Arms by Eagle Dynamics

• Stryker Family of Armored vehicles have had sights updated
• M1A2 Abrams added 3x, 6x, 13x, 25x and 50x to FLIR sights.

[Wychmaster]

Just read in the recent patch notes that the Abrams has now 50x magnification

[NineLine]

19 hours ago, Stratos said:

Hope it doesn't take too long, is really long overdue.

Yeah like anything its super complex, I learned just recently that when AI was added it was basically reskinned vehicles, so infantry has come a long way, and still has a big journey. I would rather get it right, than release it sorta right and be tuned on the fly, like how the new fuse panel came out, it was really put through the ringer, and still needs some slight tuning, but pretty solid.

[Stratos]

Looking forward, as a CAS guy is a needed feature.

[Callsign112]

[3WA]

The problem is, we have never had a true ground simulation.  CA is kind of a joke, even in RTS terms.

DCS: World should really be DCS: SKY.

We have lived with that, because you were busy making planes for the sky (especially F-16 / F-18 and all the new components you had to code), and you've done a really good job at that.  And of course, there's more to do on that as well (damage modeling, dynamic campaign, etc. ).

But I hope one day, when you get the sky to point that you are happy with it, you start working on the ground, and making it MUCH more realistic.  To the point that you can start making vehicle modules, and much more varied infantry with a LOT better AI.

I fly mostly the Ka-50, so I'm low to the ground.  I'm sure the world looks fine to Air to Air interceptors / fighters, but when you're low in a heli, you get to see the World close up, and there is a lot to be wanted.  However, some of the roads and winding creeks going through the forests do look good, and give some sense of realism.

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by 3WA

[Silver_Dragon]

11 minutes ago, 3WA said:

The problem is, we have never had a true ground simulation.  CA is kind of a joke, even in RTS terms.

DCS: World should really be DCS: SKY.

We have lived with that, because you were busy making planes for the sky (especially F-16 / F-18 and all the new components you had to code), and you've done a really good job at that.  And of course, there's more to do on that as well (damage modeling, dynamic campaign, etc. ).

But I hope one day, when you get the sky to point that you are happy with it, you start working on the ground, and making it MUCH more realistic.  To the point that you can start making vehicle modules, and much more varied infantry with a LOT better AI.

I fly mostly the Ka-50, so I'm low to the ground.  I'm sure the world looks fine to Air to Air interceptors / fighters, but when you're low in a heli, you get to see the World close up, and there is a lot to be wanted.  However, some of the roads and winding creeks going through the forests do look good, and give some sense of realism.

 

 

Again, hit the dead horse.... someone dont understand the resources, scale, personal and research required to build a DCS "vehicle sim" into DCS.

[NineLine]

5 hours ago, 3WA said:

The problem is, we have never had a true ground simulation.  CA is kind of a joke, even in RTS terms.

I feel like a broken record here... but it was never intended as a true ground simulation or an RTS, I would love to see it head in that direction, probably more than anyone, but it is not what it is, and judging it on those bars will only set it up as a failure. 

14 hours ago, Stratos said:

Looking forward, as a CAS guy is a needed feature.

I am begging and pleading for a 'show of force' ability

[gunterlund]

Nineline a while back they showed the new russian and us soldier bodies. Are they still a work in progress?

[3WA]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

judging it on those bars will only set it up as a failure. 

We know it will take some doing, and that is why we have been patient.

But you can't ignore what a vast amount of people want forever...

For instance, I've been waiting 10 years to get iglas on the Shark.

The ground truly does need some love, and soon.

Otherwise, you might as well stay at 20,000 feet.

[Stratos]

10 hours ago, NineLine said:

I am begging and pleading for a 'show of force' ability 

That would be fun!

[Silver_Dragon]

10 hours ago, 3WA said:

We know it will take some doing, and that is why we have been patient.

But you can't ignore what a vast amount of people want forever...

For instance, I've been waiting 10 years to get iglas on the Shark.

The ground truly does need some love, and soon.

Otherwise, you might as well stay at 20,000 feet.

With ED never was promise nothing about convert a JTAC UK army trainer (CA) into a vehicle simulator, but do you think that has a little work of a evening...?

If ED build a real DCS Vehicle simulator with the implementation of track phisics, Armour, fire control, crew, engines, damages, etc, will be a complete and from the scratch module, no a conversion from CA.

Only see them when ED start to recluit personal to build vehicle modules, no previously. And currently, ED is not moving in that direction. Meanwhile, CA can continue to improve them, but dont expected breaktru features. The same of Supercarrier, that not convert on a ship simulator.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Silver_Dragon

[Callsign112]

4 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

With ED never was promise nothing about convert a JTAC UK army trainer (CA) into a vehicle simulator, but do you think that has a little work of a evening...?

If ED build a real DCS Vehicle simulator with the implementation of track phisics, Armour, fire control, crew, engines, damages, etc, will be a complete and from the scratch module, no a conversion from CA.

Only see them when ED start to recluit personal to build vehicle modules, no previously. And currently, ED is not moving in that direction. Meanwhile, CA can continue to improve them, but dont expected breaktru features. The same of Supercarrier, that not convert on a ship simulator.

 

But that is the thing SD, CA itself doesn't have to be turned into a vehicle simulator. It certainly could be, but it doesn't have to be.

It is sort of what I was trying get at in the post above. At its heart and soul, it allows players to take control and use combined arms forces, which is basically how most battle fields are won.

So as a digital combat simulator, it plays a pretty big role in the way I want to enjoy DCS, or at least that is its potential.

But it also provides a fairly intricate level of control over the many ground vehicles in game, which I absolutely love and think is a really cool feature. This not only includes driving the various vehicles, or being able to instruct a group of players, but being able to guide other players flying overhead onto targets as a JTAC operator as well. CA has a few clunky aspects to its UI, but while we wait for those to be addressed, it still adds exception value to DCS.

I think this is where it gets difficult to separate what is, and what isn't a CA issue when one crops up. CA seems to be sort of a meeting place where the whole DCS experience can come together.

Other simulators have added detailed player controlled ground units.

Could updated physics models be added to CA, I am quite certain it could be, but it's not a requirement. They could also keep CA the way it is in terms of vehicle control, but add more detailed versions of the vehicles as separate modules. Given the level of quality and detail that ED has come to be known for, it probably makes sense to spread the development cost out more.

But your point is well taken, ED would have to make a move in that direction, and then allow the time for it to happen. Because as far as I can tell, DCS World is really mostly focused on only one of the three forces it is meant to represent.  

 

Edited July 24, 2022 by Callsign112

[Silver_Dragon]

11 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

If I use the other popular WWII flight sim as the example, they went from static/Ai ground units that could be scripted to follow way points in the mission editor, to having 10 detailed player controlled vehicles complete with physics models in about 2 years.

intent broken rules, Callsign112? (1.15)

Edited July 24, 2022 by Silver_Dragon

[Callsign112]

Certainly not intentional, and I wouldn't be the only one to have referenced other platforms. But I will edit the post if it bothers you.

[Apocalypse31]

We don't even need detailed vehicle interiors in CA - they do nothing for us except give us something to look at, which has no bearing on gameplay. 

I'd rather see precious developer time invested in other MUCH NEEDED areas. 

[3WA]

The Ground is MUCH NEEDED area now that we have helicopters.  If your going to call it "World", then there needs to be a World.

What I really want to see next is much more varied terrain (Getting so tired of forests next to flat farmland ).  Swamps, canyons, small villages with more complex houses and much better texturing, etc.  Terrain tanks and heli's can use to an advantage.

Anything but the usual we've had for the last 10 years or so.

Also, more varied ground units, in realistic groups, with AI that actually knows what it's doing.  Mechanized rifle companies, realistic groups of SAMS with command vehicles, etc.  Realistic Armies on the move.

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by 3WA

[draconus]

10 hours ago, 3WA said:

The Ground is MUCH NEEDED area now that we have helicopters.

Black Shark almost started DCS World and was the second DCS "module" in 2011. We have "helicopters" since 2013 when the second heli UH-1H came in. DCS always had helicopters - not only "now".

You might want to manage your expectations. Map/terrain making is not part of CA. Better, prettier, varied and more complex maps means a lot of work and huge resource hogging which will not work well in DCS in the coming years even with future hardware. Also lifelike AI with group tactics is far future - lots of smart programming and needs much processing power.

Edited July 26, 2022 by draconus

[Callsign112]

21 hours ago, Apocalypse31 said:

We don't even need detailed vehicle interiors in CA - they do nothing for us except give us something to look at, which has no bearing on gameplay. 

I'd rather see precious developer time invested in other MUCH NEEDED areas. 

 

7 hours ago, draconus said:

Black Shark almost started DCS World and was the second DCS "module" in 2011. We have "helicopters" since 2013 when the second heli UH-1H came in. DCS always had helicopters - not only "now".

You might want to manage your expectations. Map/terrain making is not part of CA. Better, prettier, varied and more complex maps means a lot of work and huge resource hogging which will not work well in DCS in the coming years even with future hardware. Also lifelike AI with group tactics is far future - lots of smart programming and needs much processing power.

 

Not disagreeing with what you said, but in terms of the programming and resources needed to include ground units, doubt they would require any more programming/resources needed to make a plane.

When you place Ai infantry in a mission, the resources are already used regardless of the number of poses it can animate.

The issues with maps as you said are real, but like everything else in the gaming industry it will continue to improve.

Regarding @3WA's point I think what he was getting at is that helicopters are growing in popularity, which is bringing the fight closer to the ground for more and more people, which in turn brings us back to the need for more improvements in the ground war.

And I agree with @Apocalypse31, I see very little need to model the interior. Accurate view ports with good physics models should be the focus. There is no need to model the cockpit like there is in a plane/jet/helicopter.