Work on Combined Arms

[Silver_Dragon]

19 hours ago, 3WA said:

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.

 

 

- Remember ED has doing the first steeps to build a rounded "World" technology (Far).
- More variety terrain has no a problem from ED, that needed more 3rd parties centred on build maps, has none a problem form ED. 
- A more detail terrais require the engine and TDK advance to add them some steeps. 
- Complex environment has a 3D builder work.
- More varied grond 3d units: more 3D modelers, codex and texturizers to speed them.
- Realistic Groups and AI is doing: Build from scrach realistic unit Command a control: More AI enginers and programers. The same situation with infantry, rework them from the scrath to make squad/platton level IA plausible.
- Mechanized Companies, realistico groups of SAM, the same of previous post...
- Realistic Armies on move: At the DCS actual scale has only a far far away target (to the next computer generations).

Edited July 26, 2022 by Silver_Dragon

[NineLine]

I have hidden one post for name calling, lets keep it mature please. 

[Donglr]

IMO it is boderline audacious to charge $40 for this module. The feature improvement over the last years is negligible. What it does now is close to what it did when it came out, while the very basics are still not covered, yet. First and foremost this is the path finding algorithm. Just now I sent a Bradley on its way, a short way mind, on a road and it still managed to get itself stuck on the railing on a bridge. That is one wasted unit that it took some time to build on a MP server. CA is generally unable to follow any path that is anything but straight, as vehicles will get stuck at things like light posts at the road side. On the Rotorheads server you are actually forbidden to move infantry, as it is too resource hungry. So a greedy algorithm that doesn't even work properly.

And obviously there is no VR support. So I actually have to restart DCS in 2D to hop into my just created unit in a MP server, just to find I cannot drive it because it is stuck.

I recently had a chat with a buddy of mine and he asked if CA was worth the $40. I couldn't believe this is the current price. IMO in its current state it is not worth more than $10. Compare how much more graphics and systems work you get with a WWII plane.

To me CA is a classic example of a module effectively abandoned. Other thing like Super Carrier are just more sexy and sell better.

[Dscross]

Nineline, 

You mentioned that Combined arms is not being made into a sim? What? why not. I personally would pay the 80$ for a full fidelity Stryker, M1 Abrams, Bradly, BMP, M4 Sherman... etc. Is it "Digital Combat Simulator"? or Just "Digital Something we can't decide Simulator"?  I bought CA when I read "Many future update and improvements..." bla, bla. I am interested in all aspects of military hardware. I buy most of the modules, but let's be honest, Combined Arms isn't worth half of what you're charging for it...when it's on sale. It's just not enjoyable to play. bugs and track reports aside, it's not fun. it's not engrossing. 

There are 2 modules I feel like I kind of got fleeced on. Combined Arms, and South Atlantic. Now that's just my feelings, and such. My opinion. But I run a training squadron, and no one I've met enjoys playing combined arms. and again, this is just my take, but Ed is a business and if you have a module that the majority of players don't seem to enjoy playing, maybe it needs a serious rework. 

Now, i cough and laugh whenever I hear someone say "but in war thunder..." yeah, it's a video game. Which is why, it really hurts to say, but if war thunder can make a Panzer IV that I can hook to rudder pedals and steer with the tracks (differential drive and braking.) , and has a 3D damage model... I don't see why ED can't and do it better to boot.  Make a M4 Sherman or any tank to the level you've made some aircraft. Hey, have Aerges do it, they did great on the F1. Or India Fox Echo... Again, just my opinion, but if ED decided to even attempt to break into the market of fully clickable ground vehicles, Ed could bring in so much of the market share from people who honestly don't want to fly. I know several guys who will RIO all day, they just don't fly. They don't like to fly. They like to run systems and blow stuff up. They'd jump at a chance to play an M1, a Bradly, or anything. So is it "Digital Combat Simulator"? or not? 

[Worrazen]

I think what some people may not realize but would agree with that what is being said is what the next CA should be and not what the existing CA needs to be. Simply rewording and transforming all of these complaints into feedback and ideas for the next-gen CA would be much better and I think a next rewritten CA should come anyway in order to support and be well integrated with the "Dynamic Campaign" and other advancements, at least in areas that matter.
 

[NineLine]

On 8/15/2022 at 7:50 AM, Dscross said:

You mentioned that Combined arms is not being made into a sim? What? why not. I personally would pay the 80$ for a full fidelity Stryker, M1 Abrams, Bradly, BMP, M4 Sherman... etc.

Sorry for the late reply, the simple answer is why not in deed. The answer to that currently is 1) we (being ED) do not have the resources for creating a full simulation of vehicles 2) no one has approached us yet with a desire and ability to do it either. 

Point 2, to expand on would require someone that is willing to work with the fact that there is no base for such a simulation, you cannot build a vehicle on the foundation of an aircraft module, so think of it as carving a new niche in DCS, its probably not for the light hearted.

Back to point 1, nobody would say no to doing it if we had the manpower to do it, and I have no doubt it would be very popular built on what we already have.

Its not for lack of want, its lack of resources, time and manpower. 

[Dscross]

11 hours ago, NineLine said:

Sorry for the late reply, the simple answer is why not indeed. The answer to that currently is 1) we (being ED) do not have the resources for creating a full simulation of vehicles 2) no one has approached us yet with a desire and ability to do it either. 

Point 2, to expand on would require someone that is willing to work with the fact that there is no base for such a simulation, you cannot build a vehicle on the foundation of an aircraft module, so think of it as carving a new niche in DCS, it's probably not for the lighthearted.

Back to point 1, nobody would say no to doing it if we had the manpower to do it, and I have no doubt it would be very popular built on what we already have.

It's not for lack of want, its lack of resources, time and manpower. 

Hey at least you replied, 

As to number 1, I don't know what resources ED has or doesn't' have, nor do I know what such a simulation would entail. However, I do know that Combined Arms, and the overall general dismal quality of damage models of ground and Naval units is a blemish on the overall reputation of Eagle Dynamics. You produced a product which implied it was of a standard. However, it fails in every way of meeting the overall stellar simulations of aircraft in DCS world. 

As to number 2, When John Rockefeller was in starting standard oil, he didn't wait for people to knock on his door, he pulled every string, lobbied to make whaling illegal, (whale oil being a then competitor of kerosine, gasoline was a byproduct.), I.E., he turned a waste product (gasoline) into a business, Henry Ford did the same thing with wood shavings, starting Kingsford charcoal made from the shavings of wooden wheel spokes. Seems sort of like ED treats CA like a byproduct or waste with the lack of support, lack of updates, and abysmal damage modeling. 

Point 2 "No base for such a simulation". Isn't there? Do other games, simulations, etc. not have more realistic damage models for ground vehicles? Again, I hate to bring it up, but go watch a kill camera of a tank from war thunder. It's shameful that CA isn't even close to that level. Furthermore, most modern Armed Forces own, use, train on, and sponsor simulators for armor. There are rows and rows of M1 tank simulators for training American tankers. I'm sure other nations do as well. Therefore, I would disagree that there is no basis or foundation to begin with. Sounds like no one is looking for a solution. 

Combined arms, at least in my opinion, is a stain on Eagle Dynamics. It doesn't get fixed, or even marginally improved. It's still sold. Again, it's not just people who want a tank simulator who are being short changed. Anyone who has ever dropped a bomb on a tank, missed by 5 or 10 feet, and the tank is still in perfect condition. Let me ask you, have you ever fired a Harpoon into a ship in DCS? Damage models. Those unworkable damage models of ships, ground units, and might I ad... trees, bring down the whole emersion factor of the sim for everyone. 

And here's the kicker. Eagle Dynamics made this product. So... when the company has more interest in... say allowing a 3rd party developer to hold exclusive rights to develop a module for over 10 years and never finish it, than fixing what you've already made, and people have reasonable complaints about? That's not reassuring from a consumer point of view. (How and in what universe was that not a breach of contract? You guys need new lawyers, like really bad.)

Here's my advice, start with something small, that will directly relate to combined arms, while also benefiting the customer base as a whole. Perhaps separating a MBT into 3 sections, hull, turret, tracks/wheels. Give these three separate systems differing levels of damage resistance. This would allow pilots to knock the tracks off an MBT, or blow the tires on a Stryker, something I experienced firsthand when my unit would hit an IED. (Which were usually much smaller than a Mk82...)  Tires would blow, a fuse would pop, everyone inside was usually fine. A tank could get its turret knocked off the rollers by a near miss from a large bomb, then the ammo truck could fix it in a set amount of time. (Just spit balling here) Now that to me sounds like expanding what you've done already and wouldn't be reinventing the wheel so to speak. It would also show me as a costumer that you are attempting to keep your product up to date and give costumers results instead of ignoring our requests and complaints with excuses that don't hold water.   

You're telling me you don't have the staff or resources when 3-4 new maps, and how many modules are in development announced recently? Sure, those are third party, but ED staff needs to test every module for release. Someone has to read the proposals, check how the modeling will be done, check the code... Does ED not have a team to correct faults? make fixes? Write improved code? Develop better damage models? Perhaps task them with doing the job of making a fix for CA... you know like it's their job or something. Don't tell me you don't have the staff. You aren't using the staff or recourses you have to correct your past mistakes. You're making new ones, like allowing a third-party developer to put an advertising object in static objects? That was just shamefully tacky. How many modelers did it take to make that mechanical billboard? Why don't you task each of the third-party developers with making a small improvement to Combined Arms, you know, as the price of doing business? Heat blur did the Forrestal? why not an armored recovery vehicle? Razbam made the excavator, the stupid orca I'd like to turn into jet fuel (whale oil...kerosine... standard oil...) and the shameless billboard, I bet they can model a tank tread with a damage model. (Indestructible like the castle class... Seriously, what the hell is wrong with that ship? It made out of unobatanium?)

Recently, ED has announced work on "Black Shark 3". You are honestly telling me that ED staff is spending time to remodel and retextured a prototype helicopter that never got weapons certified, rather than give the community of nerds who read NATOPS manuals (myself included) a correct tank, or even marginally better ones? What's next, a UFO simulator? I guess it's easier to model vehicles that aren't real as there's no one to tell you that it's wrong. (Me imagining all the Combat Veteran KA-50 pilots and ground crews explaining things to ED coders...)  Clearly Combined Arms isn't a priority, that much is very clear. And that's a shame because I think ED's business could really expand if some work was directed at this. 

If you lack the resources, ask for help. Like half the people I meet in DCS have a military background of some sort. Then there are coders, tank museums, and half the VFW halls in the United States have an M48 or M60 in front of them. And it isn't just the USA, there are military veterans from probably every armed force on earth that play DCS. You can't find anyone to help?  I guess I'll put it this way; I'm interested in putting together a team to make full fidelity ground vehicles for DCS world. What do I need to do? Who wants to help? 

Ground vehicles and ships are a critical part of DCS. They are the targets we get to attack; they are the ground forces we want to help move towards and objective. Air Forces exist to support ground forces, because ground forces win wars and being pain and destruction to the enemy on a very personal level. If you're targets aren't even remotely realistic, then the immersion is destroyed, and it's just a hit points video game. Come on, show me a blown off track or a magazine detonation with a turret flying off. 

My name on Discord is Dscross#3705.

I can give you a list however many pages long you want of small, medium, and large improvements you could make to improve Combined Arms. 

 

[Silver_Dragon]

On 8/15/2022 at 3:50 PM, Dscross said:

Nineline, 

You mentioned that Combined arms is not being made into a sim? What? why not. I personally would pay the 80$ for a full fidelity Stryker, M1 Abrams, Bradly, BMP, M4 Sherman... etc. Is it "Digital Combat Simulator"? or Just "Digital Something we can't decide Simulator"?  I bought CA when I read "Many future update and improvements..." bla, bla. I am interested in all aspects of military hardware. I buy most of the modules, but let's be honest, Combined Arms isn't worth half of what you're charging for it...when it's on sale. It's just not enjoyable to play. bugs and track reports aside, it's not fun. it's not engrossing. 

There are 2 modules I feel like I kind of got fleeced on. Combined Arms, and South Atlantic. Now that's just my feelings, and such. My opinion. But I run a training squadron, and no one I've met enjoys playing combined arms. and again, this is just my take, but Ed is a business and if you have a module that the majority of players don't seem to enjoy playing, maybe it needs a serious rework. 

Now, i cough and laugh whenever I hear someone say "but in war thunder..." yeah, it's a video game. Which is why, it really hurts to say, but if war thunder can make a Panzer IV that I can hook to rudder pedals and steer with the tracks (differential drive and braking.) , and has a 3D damage model... I don't see why ED can't and do it better to boot.  Make a M4 Sherman or any tank to the level you've made some aircraft. Hey, have Aerges do it, they did great on the F1. Or India Fox Echo... Again, just my opinion, but if ED decided to even attempt to break into the market of fully clickable ground vehicles, Ed could bring in so much of the market share from people who honestly don't want to fly. I know several guys who will RIO all day, they just don't fly. They don't like to fly. They like to run systems and blow stuff up. They'd jump at a chance to play an M1, a Bradly, or anything. So is it "Digital Combat Simulator"? or not? 

- Combined Arms was a old JTAC military trainer to the UK army, aproved to release on DCS, no a driveable tank module. That never was your target.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Dscross said:

Hey at least you replied, 

As to number 1, I don't know what resources ED has or doesn't' have, nor do I know what such a simulation would entail. However, I do know that Combined Arms, and the overall general dismal quality of damage models of ground and Naval units is a blemish on the overall reputation of Eagle Dynamics. You produced a product which implied it was of a standard. However, it fails in every way of meeting the overall stellar simulations of aircraft in DCS world. 

As to number 2, When John Rockefeller was in starting standard oil, he didn't wait for people to knock on his door, he pulled every string, lobbied to make whaling illegal, (whale oil being a then competitor of kerosine, gasoline was a byproduct.), I.E., he turned a waste product (gasoline) into a business, Henry Ford did the same thing with wood shavings, starting Kingsford charcoal made from the shavings of wooden wheel spokes. Seems sort of like ED treats CA like a byproduct or waste with the lack of support, lack of updates, and abysmal damage modeling. 

Point 2 "No base for such a simulation". Isn't there? Do other games, simulations, etc. not have more realistic damage models for ground vehicles? Again, I hate to bring it up, but go watch a kill camera of a tank from war thunder. It's shameful that CA isn't even close to that level. Furthermore, most modern Armed Forces own, use, train on, and sponsor simulators for armor. There are rows and rows of M1 tank simulators for training American tankers. I'm sure other nations do as well. Therefore, I would disagree that there is no basis or foundation to begin with. Sounds like no one is looking for a solution. 

Combined arms, at least in my opinion, is a stain on Eagle Dynamics. It doesn't get fixed, or even marginally improved. It's still sold. Again, it's not just people who want a tank simulator who are being short changed. Anyone who has ever dropped a bomb on a tank, missed by 5 or 10 feet, and the tank is still in perfect condition. Let me ask you, have you ever fired a Harpoon into a ship in DCS? Damage models. Those unworkable damage models of ships, ground units, and might I ad... trees, bring down the whole emersion factor of the sim for everyone. 

And here's the kicker. Eagle Dynamics made this product. So... when the company has more interest in... say allowing a 3rd party developer to hold exclusive rights to develop a module for over 10 years and never finish it, than fixing what you've already made, and people have reasonable complaints about? That's not reassuring from a consumer point of view. (How and in what universe was that not a breach of contract? You guys need new lawyers, like really bad.)

Here's my advice, start with something small, that will directly relate to combined arms, while also benefiting the customer base as a whole. Perhaps separating a MBT into 3 sections, hull, turret, tracks/wheels. Give these three separate systems differing levels of damage resistance. This would allow pilots to knock the tracks off an MBT, or blow the tires on a Stryker, something I experienced firsthand when my unit would hit an IED. (Which were usually much smaller than a Mk82...)  Tires would blow, a fuse would pop, everyone inside was usually fine. A tank could get its turret knocked off the rollers by a near miss from a large bomb, then the ammo truck could fix it in a set amount of time. (Just spit balling here) Now that to me sounds like expanding what you've done already and wouldn't be reinventing the wheel so to speak. It would also show me as a costumer that you are attempting to keep your product up to date and give costumers results instead of ignoring our requests and complaints with excuses that don't hold water.   

You're telling me you don't have the staff or resources when 3-4 new maps, and how many modules are in development announced recently? Sure, those are third party, but ED staff needs to test every module for release. Someone has to read the proposals, check how the modeling will be done, check the code... Does ED not have a team to correct faults? make fixes? Write improved code? Develop better damage models? Perhaps task them with doing the job of making a fix for CA... you know like it's their job or something. Don't tell me you don't have the staff. You aren't using the staff or recourses you have to correct your past mistakes. You're making new ones, like allowing a third-party developer to put an advertising object in static objects? That was just shamefully tacky. How many modelers did it take to make that mechanical billboard? Why don't you task each of the third-party developers with making a small improvement to Combined Arms, you know, as the price of doing business? Heat blur did the Forrestal? why not an armored recovery vehicle? Razbam made the excavator, the stupid orca I'd like to turn into jet fuel (whale oil...kerosine... standard oil...) and the shameless billboard, I bet they can model a tank tread with a damage model. (Indestructible like the castle class... Seriously, what the hell is wrong with that ship? It made out of unobatanium?)

Recently, ED has announced work on "Black Shark 3". You are honestly telling me that ED staff is spending time to remodel and retextured a prototype helicopter that never got weapons certified, rather than give the community of nerds who read NATOPS manuals (myself included) a correct tank, or even marginally better ones? What's next, a UFO simulator? I guess it's easier to model vehicles that aren't real as there's no one to tell you that it's wrong. (Me imagining all the Combat Veteran KA-50 pilots and ground crews explaining things to ED coders...)  Clearly Combined Arms isn't a priority, that much is very clear. And that's a shame because I think ED's business could really expand if some work was directed at this. 

If you lack the resources, ask for help. Like half the people I meet in DCS have a military background of some sort. Then there are coders, tank museums, and half the VFW halls in the United States have an M48 or M60 in front of them. And it isn't just the USA, there are military veterans from probably every armed force on earth that play DCS. You can't find anyone to help?  I guess I'll put it this way; I'm interested in putting together a team to make full fidelity ground vehicles for DCS world. What do I need to do? Who wants to help? 

Ground vehicles and ships are a critical part of DCS. They are the targets we get to attack; they are the ground forces we want to help move towards and objective. Air Forces exist to support ground forces, because ground forces win wars and being pain and destruction to the enemy on a very personal level. If you're targets aren't even remotely realistic, then the immersion is destroyed, and it's just a hit points video game. Come on, show me a blown off track or a magazine detonation with a turret flying off. 

My name on Discord is Dscross#3705.

I can give you a list however many pages long you want of small, medium, and large improvements you could make to improve Combined Arms. 

 

The main problem to build a "Ground" module as actually missing all DLLs to generate a pilotable vehicle, assign a interior 3D model and get funtionality as a cockpit aircraft or helo. The same appears on a ship, ED has not build any technology on the "Supercarrier" module to builid pilotable ships or add Bridges, CIC or similar to make ship controls into a module, only have centred on the "carrier air wing" funtionality. That technology has no enable on the SDK or core to a 3rd party / Comunity can build a 3D interiores ships yet.

- The "You're telling me you don't have the staff or resources when 3-4 new maps, and how many modules are in development announced recently?" has builded by exteral 3rd party companies, outiside of any ED team studios, and has nothing to do with the core develop features as add vehicles and ships. They dont have access to the core files and only have a SDK with the DCS funtionalities builded by part of the ED team. Remember RAZBAM AI objects has on WIP, and not represent the final release stage (all map has on "beta" status), and surelly, the SA assets pack, continue expanded by the time.

Map objects has diferent with a "Static" objects, that has builded with diferent SKD (Main SDK to making pilotable / AI objects), TDK (Terrain Develop Kit), to build maps. As you say, RAZBAM need export from the map team all objercts, and convert them into SDK to put them into static / AI units objects. 

ED has none as a permanent Ground / Sea team and none similar to build Damage models or others features from years ago, you can review that post or the russian forum. All Ground Vehicle / Tank technology require a dedicated team with start all from the scratch. The same situation has been to build a "realistic Damage model" or some similar, need build from zero.

 

Edited September 17, 2022 by Silver_Dragon

[Callsign112]

4 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The main problem to build a "Ground" module as actually missing all DLLs to generate a pilotable vehicle, assign a interior 3D model and get funtionality as a cockpit aircraft or helo. The same appears on a ship, ED has not build any technology on the "Supercarrier" module to builid pilotable ships or add Bridges, CIC or similar to make ship controls into a module, only have centred on the "carrier air wing" funtionality. That technology has no enable on the SDK or core to a 3rd party / Comunity can build a 3D interiores ships yet.

- The "You're telling me you don't have the staff or resources when 3-4 new maps, and how many modules are in development announced recently?" has builded by exteral 3rd party companies, outiside of any ED team studios, and has nothing to do with the core develop features as add vehicles and ships. They dont have access to the core files and only have a SDK with the DCS funtionalities builded by part of the ED team.

ED has none as a permanent Ground / Sea team and none similar to build Damage models or others features from years ago, you can review that post or the russian forum. All Ground Vehicle / Tank technology require a dedicated team with start all from the scratch.

 

I think this is where some of the confusion starts. People often use the word "simulator" when they discuss ground vehicles in CA, but what they are mostly talking about is improvements to ground vehicles.

Your right SD, Combined Arms was probably never meant to be a dedicated M1A1 tank simulator. But it shouldn't have to be in order to see improvements in tanks/ships. I personally think CA is an excellent addition to DCS, and it deserves more attention then it gets. I know this may be difficult for ED given the amount of resources it has, but there are other examples of a flight sim that added detailed vehicles. It shouldn't require a complete rewrite just to improve ground/track physics models, or any other aspect of ground vehicles.

But in terms of ED's target for DCS, this quote is taken from the DCS World web page:

"Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

[Silver_Dragon]

6 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

but in terms of ED's target for DCS, this quote is taken from the DCS World web page:

"Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

Actually, that has only a adversiting. Remember some old Wags / Nick Grey interviews "We cant build a FPS module into DCS if a Professional client dont require them". That is the same situation on other DCS Branches, if you don have some support to make similar features with affect to land / sea environment, ED only continue to centred on Air branches. Other problem has been you required expecialized personal to build a "land" module, and ED actually dont required depeloped with some experience working on vehicle phisics, example, ED has contract some "Dinamic Campaing enginiers", but no a specialized Land based develop enginier, only a "C ++ Programmer (Ground Enginnering)", centred on add vehicles and ships by LUA, I think, only IAs.

[Callsign112]

Actually SD, advertising is what the whole ball of wax is made of. And as you can see from the attached screen shots, ED has done a pretty decent job so far with its ground environment. That is not to say that it doesn't need updates, but DCS certainly doesn't have everyone at 20k feet either.

Personally I think you are making it more complicated then it really is in terms of what is possible. I know ED has a lot on its plate and resources are probably spread pretty thin, but you wouldn't have to look too hard to find a good example of what can be done in terms of detailed vehicles being added to a flight sim.

But I get your point, the work that still needs to be done would require someone to do it.

[draconus]

15 hours ago, Dscross said:

I guess I'll put it this way; I'm interested in putting together a team to make full fidelity ground vehicles for DCS world.

Now you start to make sense. You do that and better start with UFO. That will match your expectations with your sw development knowledge. Keep us updated, please.

Btw, if you didn't know here's an ED roadmap for DM:

1. WW2 aircraft - done

2. Modern aircraft - WIP

3. Ground vehicles - planned

4. Ships - planned

Can you confirm, @NineLine?

And the new DM is expected to be much more detailed than mere 3 areas.

Don't get me wrong I want CA and DCS to grow, add, fix and improve including FPS and full vehicle sim but I actually read what devs say.

Edited September 18, 2022 by draconus

[Silver_Dragon]

I recomend start a new post, outside CA, named as "Ground Module Develop" outside CA.

For me, about a Vehicle module, that is the prioritary steeps:

- Making hability to build "vehicles" as pilotable modules by LUAs.
- Capability to add a cockpit interior on a vehicle, as a aircraft or helo by LUAs.
- Vehicle / tank realistic phisics.
- Hability to add funcionality as enginers, transmisions, radiator, suspensions, brakes, wheel / tracks, Axles, batteries, headlights, tailsights, turrets, doors, alternators, sterlings, windshields and periscopes, wispers, gear box, fuel tanks, radios, sights, other systems, etc. Some has presents on DCS (WW2 / helo modules), others need builded on the core.
- vehicle realistic Armour and DMs.
- Multicrew hability on vehicles
- Realistic transport capability (troops / cargo) of AI / players.
- etc (add to the list).

Edit:

@draconus @Callsign112 @Dscross @3WA
I open a post to talk about a vehicle module on the Mod section:

 

Edited September 18, 2022 by Silver_Dragon

[draconus]

22 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

For me, about a Vehicle module, that is the prioritary steeps...

Most of it is available in the current aircraft dev kit.

[Worrazen]

18 hours ago, Dscross said:

Hey at least you replied, 

As to number 1, I don't know what resources ED has or doesn't' have, nor do I know what such a simulation would entail. However, I do know that Combined Arms, and the overall general dismal quality of damage models of ground and Naval units is a blemish on the overall reputation of Eagle Dynamics. You produced a product which implied it was of a standard. However, it fails in every way of meeting the overall stellar simulations of aircraft in DCS world. 

As to number 2, When John Rockefeller was in starting standard oil, he didn't wait for people to knock on his door, he pulled every string, lobbied to make whaling illegal, (whale oil being a then competitor of kerosine, gasoline was a byproduct.), I.E., he turned a waste product (gasoline) into a business, Henry Ford did the same thing with wood shavings, starting Kingsford charcoal made from the shavings of wooden wheel spokes. Seems sort of like ED treats CA like a byproduct or waste with the lack of support, lack of updates, and abysmal damage modeling.

I have a lot more to say around this and CA and DCS in general, but I think this relates to my previous point. People have a wrong idea of what CA is about. Damage model in my opinion has nothing to do with CA. CA is just the ability for user control and piloting of more than just aircraft, GUI and associated functionality, that's what I thought and that's also what is said on the product page.

For example In my experience I found the F10 Top Down Map RTS-Style view controls of various units and groups to be buggy, the way you have to click for giving move orders, left clict, right click, indications, the way orders get canceled, confirmed, stuck, some units don't move with the group, speed control being ignored, etc ... I think that's a lot more relevant and valid feedback for CA. So if Vehicle Damage Model is out of the scope of CA, then your feedback based on that argument is probably completely invalid.

What I do not like in general is that in DCS there is still no clear separation of what level of simulation each unit is simulated in so it creates some confusion. Some units are arcadey, some are simple, advanced, professional. Plus there's no any kind of standard in any of these terms inside DCS, let alone the industry (not necessary, impractical, ..other reasons I can't remember the word), unfortunately standards also change as time progresses, so it's tough, maybe that's exactly why these monikers weren't set in stone in the past. I guess the encyclopedia would cover that separation, but I think it could be labeled or otherwise indicated in the ME, there could even be a category filter just for this purpose, but ofcourse not in-game. I don't have a 100% opinion on this because there could be some downsides and I would need to explore this more to figure it out.

[Callsign112]

5 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

I recomend start a new post, outside CA, named as "Ground Module Develop" outside CA.

For me, about a Vehicle module, that is the prioritary steeps:

- Making hability to build "vehicles" as pilotable modules by LUAs.
- Capability to add a cockpit interior on a vehicle, as a aircraft or helo by LUAs.
- Vehicle / tank realistic phisics.
- Hability to add funcionality as enginers, transmisions, radiator, suspensions, brakes, wheel / tracks, Axles, batteries, headlights, tailsights, turrets, doors, alternators, sterlings, windshields and periscopes, wispers, gear box, fuel tanks, radios, sights, other systems, etc. Some has presents on DCS (WW2 / helo modules), others need builded on the core.
- vehicle realistic Armour and DMs.
- Multicrew hability on vehicles
- Realistic transport capability (troops / cargo) of AI / players.
- etc (add to the list).

Edit:

@draconus @Callsign112 @Dscross @3WA
I open a post to talk about a vehicle module on the Mod section:

 

 

Thanks for starting the discussion on vehicle module development. But again, a lot of what you listed is already there, it just needs to be updated/fixed/improved. And some of the things that aren't there could be added in time, but wouldn't be deal breakers for vehicle control in CA.

I copy/pasted what are IMO the most important features of a player controlled vehicle, and which already exist to some degree on the current vehicles in CA. Regarding vehicle interiors, I don't think there is any need to model the interior of a tank the same way the cockpit of an aircraft is modeled. The most important thing in this area IMO is simply the different views that are available. Make the gun sights/view stations more true to life, and your golden. And as I have already mentioned, a lot of the view stations are already modeled and could simply use refinement.

transmissions/gear box

suspensions/tracks

periscopes/sights

Gun/Armor

DMs.

[Callsign112]

1 hour ago, Worrazen said:

I have a lot more to say around this and CA and DCS in general, but I think this relates to my previous point. People have a wrong idea of what CA is about. Damage model in my opinion has nothing to do with CA. CA is just the ability for user control and piloting of more than just aircraft, GUI and associated functionality, that's what I thought and that's also what is said on the product page.

For example In my experience I found the F10 Top Down Map RTS-Style view controls of various units and groups to be buggy, the way you have to click for giving move orders, left clict, right click, indications, the way orders get canceled, confirmed, stuck, some units don't move with the group, speed control being ignored, etc ... I think that's a lot more relevant and valid feedback for CA. So if Vehicle Damage Model is out of the scope of CA, then your feedback based on that argument is probably completely invalid.

What I do not like in general is that in DCS there is still no clear separation of what level of simulation each unit is simulated in so it creates some confusion. Some units are arcadey, some are simple, advanced, professional. Plus there's no any kind of standard in any of these terms inside DCS, let alone the industry (not necessary, impractical, ..other reasons I can't remember the word), unfortunately standards also change as time progresses, so it's tough, maybe that's exactly why these monikers weren't set in stone in the past. I guess the encyclopedia would cover that separation, but I think it could be labeled or otherwise indicated in the ME, there could even be a category filter just for this purpose, but ofcourse not in-game. I don't have a 100% opinion on this because there could be some downsides and I would need to explore this more to figure it out.

While I agree the lines between what is and what isn't a CA issue are easily blurred, the Combined Arms interface is what allows you to control/drive the ground units. So in this regard, I think feedback regarding improvements to ground units should be a CA issue.

[Silver_Dragon]

11 hours ago, draconus said:

Most of it is available in the current aircraft dev kit.

Negative. A propeller / reactor engine work diferent of a vehicle piston / turbine engine, include suspension and other systems.

6 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Thanks for starting the discussion on vehicle module development. But again, a lot of what you listed is already there, it just needs to be updated/fixed/improved. And some of the things that aren't there could be added in time, but wouldn't be deal breakers for vehicle control in CA.

I copy/pasted what are IMO the most important features of a player controlled vehicle, and which already exist to some degree on the current vehicles in CA. Regarding vehicle interiors, I don't think there is any need to model the interior of a tank the same way the cockpit of an aircraft is modeled. The most important thing in this area IMO is simply the different views that are available. Make the gun sights/view stations more true to life, and your golden. And as I have already mentioned, a lot of the view stations are already modeled and could simply use refinement.

transmissions/gear box

suspensions/tracks

periscopes/sights

Gun/Armor

DMs.

ED team has very clear, no hardcore simulation or updates on CA, has a closed module. If We like see some of "realistic" need to think on how make a real vehicle module, no a placebo. That require a 3rd party with interest, make reseach, build a team and coding a DCS ground vehicle concept.
 

 

Edited September 18, 2022 by Silver_Dragon

[Callsign112]

3 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Negative. A propeller / reactor engine work diferent of a vehicle piston / turbine engine, include suspension and other systems.

ED team has very clear, no hardcore simulation or updates on CA, has a closed module. If We like see some of "realistic" need to think on how make a real vehicle module, no a placebo. That require a 3rd party with interest, make reseach, build a team and coding a DCS ground vehicle concept.
 

 

 

The DM is probably the most hardcore point listed above, and that is supposedly already planned.

Cleaning up the transmission/gear box could simply be making sure the number of gears modeled are accurate for each vehicle, and that gear shifts occur at appropriate engine RPM.

The same could be said for periscopes/sights, the view stations for the most part already exist, there is noting hardcore about ensuring that they resemble the actual view from each vehicle. 

[Silver_Dragon]

The DM is probably the most hardcore point listed above, and that is supposedly already planned.
Cleaning up the transmission/gear box could simply be making sure the number of gears modeled are accurate for each vehicle, and that gear shifts occur at appropriate engine RPM.
The same could be said for periscopes/sights, the view stations for the most part already exist, there is noting hardcore about ensuring that they resemble the actual view from each vehicle. 

Realistic vehicle Damage model has outside from CA. That is a core feature, outside of the old UK desktop trainer.

About improve gearbox and Sights, I don't expected them, if no talk nothing.

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

[Callsign112]

5 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Realistic vehicle Damage model has outside from CA. That is a core feature, outside of the old UK desktop trainer.

About improve gearbox and Sights, I don't expected them, if no talk nothing.

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk
 

It doesn't really matter if a feature is part of a module, or part of DCS World core. The point at this point in the discussion is more about what is possible in terms of adding to DCS World.

In another flight sim, I saw the Dev's there modify the terrain model so that it affected how a player controlled vehicle moved, and this was done to all 4 maps that were originally made for flight and never intended to have ground vehicles. That feature was obviously implemented through the core, but it was only noticed/considered by the people using ground vehicles.

The damage models used for the various objects in DCS World are quite complex because of the amount of detail that has been put into them. I don't think the problem is whether or not a DM can be added to/updated in DCS World. I think the problem is more likely related to finding the time and resources to do it.

[Silver_Dragon]

On 9/21/2022 at 12:40 PM, Callsign112 said:

It doesn't really matter if a feature is part of a module, or part of DCS World core. The point at this point in the discussion is more about what is possible in terms of adding to DCS World.

In another flight sim, I saw the Dev's there modify the terrain model so that it affected how a player controlled vehicle moved, and this was done to all 4 maps that were originally made for flight and never intended to have ground vehicles. That feature was obviously implemented through the core, but it was only noticed/considered by the people using ground vehicles.

The damage models used for the various objects in DCS World are quite complex because of the amount of detail that has been put into them. I don't think the problem is whether or not a DM can be added to/updated in DCS World. I think the problem is more likely related to finding the time and resources to do it.

All old DMs coming from LOMAC / FC times. Changing a vehicle DM at same scale at a aircraft has none a easy task, by the problem of the missing of some funtionalities and systems on vehicles. A aircraft / helo has some systems with can breakdown. On a vehicle you cant hit a engine, a wheel or a fuel tank by that has missing modeling on a AI unit, and implement them can require a dedicate team, no only to improve the AI units. Has necesary to make real ground enviroment improvements. The same situation happens on the sea environment.

Other Flight sym has none to do on that discussion (remember the rules), we have talking about DCS and remember, the "others" build a funtional vehicle module centred on a era from scratch, no a Pseudo vehicle and Pseudo FPS into other requested profesional module funtionality.

Edited September 22, 2022 by Silver_Dragon

[Callsign112]

On 9/21/2022 at 1:36 PM, Silver_Dragon said:

All old DMs coming from LOMAC / FC times. Changing a vehicle DM at same scale at a aircraft has none a easy time by the problem of the missing of some funtionalities and systems on vehicles. A aircraft / helo has some systems with can breakdown. On a vehicle you cant hit a engine, a wheel or a fuel tank by that has missing modeling on a AI unit, and implement them can require a dedicate team, no only to improve the AI units. Has necesary to make real ground enviroment improvements. The same situation happens on the sea environment.

Other Flight sym has none to do on that discussion (remember the rules), we have talking about DCS and remember, the "others" build a funtional vehicle module centred on a era from scratch, no a Pseudo vehicle and Pseudo FPS into other requested profesional funtionality.

 

No one is breaking any rules SD. You have suggested here and elsewhere that something can't be done, I simply pointed out that it can be.

SD said... "Combined Arms was a old JTAC military trainer to the UK army, aproved to release on DCS, no a driveable tank module. That never was your target."

Where your comments in the quote above are wrong IMO are in regards to the features offered in CA. Combined Arms might be an old JTAC trainer approved for release on DCS, but it also allows the end user to drive and control tanks. As far as I understand, CA was marketed with this feature from its release. As a customer that purchased the CA module, I fully expected to be able to drive tanks when I purchased it.

In terms of working on CA, which is what this thread is about, it really doesn't matter to me if an improvement is done to the DCS core, or the CA module itself. For example, we can now start and stop the engine of ground vehicles. I really don't care at what level this improvement had to be implemented on, what matters is that I saw an improvement in my control of ground vehicles in CA.

Regarding DM's, the issue isn't about the time period the current models come from, it is about improving them. I'm not expecting DM for ground vehicles to make the leap from where they are now to the same scale and level as the current DM for WWII planes. But any and all improvements are always appreciated. Work on CA please!

 

[Silver_Dragon]

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

No one is breaking any rules SD. You have suggested here and elsewhere that something can't be done, I simply pointed out that it can be.

SD said... "Combined Arms was a old JTAC military trainer to the UK army, aproved to release on DCS, no a driveable tank module. That never was your target."

Where your comments in the quote above are wrong IMO are in regards to the features offered in CA. Combined Arms might be an old JTAC trainer approved for release on DCS, but it also allows the end user to drive and control tanks. As far as I understand, CA was marketed with this feature from its release. As a customer that purchased the CA module, I fully expected to be able to drive tanks when I purchased it.

In terms of working on CA, which is what this thread is about, it really doesn't matter to me if an improvement is done to the DCS core, or the CA module itself. For example, we can now start and stop the engine of ground vehicles. I really don't care at what level this improvement had to be implemented on, what matters is that I saw an improvement in my control of ground vehicles in CA.

Regarding DM's, the issue isn't about the time period the current models come from, it is about improving them. I'm not expecting DM for ground vehicles to make the leap from where they are now to the same scale and level as the current DM for WWII planes. But any and all improvements are always appreciated. Work on CA please!

 

On the CA Russian forums, has x10000 request about "improve CA" and the aswer has the same. "JTAC CA team" has dead 10 years ago, to improve CA, need build a new team and a new product, a CA 2, but no resources yet.

From Russian Forum

 

 

Quote

 

Literally@Kate Perederko ( CEO of ED ) posted the following on Discord.

 

dotrugirl 18.12.2020 .
 

Quote

Combined Arms 2 is frozen, not enough arms yet