What's the deal with missing crew for all the new ground units

[twistking]

So the upcoming KS-19 seems to have animations for shell ejection ( https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/ef3/cf1wugyh9urt302bgtk31f0kjggt0p01/In_Dev_15.07.2022.7.jpg ) but like with all recent additions it is lacking it's crew. This is mind boggling to me. I appreciate the highly detailed models, but the lack of crew really nullifies all this. I'd honestly prefer the lower fidelity models that at least have the (ugly) crew models. ZSU-23-2 for example.
The suepr high details and animations are nice to have, but the missing crew is actually notable in gameplay:
I remember one instance where my human wingman reported all enemy AAA netralized in the area. Only when i came under heavy fire, he realized that unmanned guns will still fight. >This is stupid!<

Honestly ED, we don't need super detailed crew with compelx body temperature and behaviourial simulation. For all i care, put those old ugly crew models in and give them the treatment for the new FLIR.

Please!

[Kang]

What I personally find a little bit puzzling is that some units - and not only ones ported from FC2 - have visible crew while others don't.

For example the 2B14 mortar that has been in the game from the start has no crew and that makes it virtually invisible and really hard to attack. The Bofors or Flak 18, which are semi-recent additions, granted from the WW2 asset pack but still, have visible crew.

I agree with twistking that I would like crew on all active units where the crew would be openly visible, but I'd also like it to be reasonably consistent.

[joey45]

That has puzzled me as well..

[Rudel_chw]

I would actually prefer the crew of artillery units to be individual units & statics, in diverse poses, so that we could place them in whichever disposition we want around the artillery piece, and so that modders could add different liveries to them (winter, summer, etc).  On an ideal world, there could be two sets of crew: one for WW2 and another for 1960-onwards.

[joey45]

Have a tick box with the crew visible or not.

With the crew have a dropdown list for different poses (pre animated poses) to cut down on precious megabytes. 

[Kang]

16 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

I would actually prefer the crew of artillery units to be individual units & statics, in diverse poses, so that we could place them in whichever disposition we want around the artillery piece, and so that modders could add different liveries to them (winter, summer, etc).  On an ideal world, there could be two sets of crew: one for WW2 and another for 1960-onwards.

I feel that would make placing them a rather troublesome deal, though, if all you want is a quick air defence position. But I am all for including various crews as 'Infantry' type units to properly detail some bases you are likely to land a helicopter in for example.

[Rudel_chw]

9 minutes ago, Kang said:

I feel that would make placing them a rather troublesome deal, though, if all you want is a quick air defence position.

 

That's what Group Templates are for 

[twistking]

On 7/17/2022 at 11:51 PM, Rudel_chw said:

I would actually prefer the crew of artillery units to be individual units & statics, in diverse poses, so that we could place them in whichever disposition we want around the artillery piece, and so that modders could add different liveries to them (winter, summer, etc).  On an ideal world, there could be two sets of crew: one for WW2 and another for 1960-onwards.

That may work for artillery pieces or equipment that don't have crew positions with proper seating (howitzers, mortars, etc.), but most AAA pieces have proper control stations and it would look off having those vacant. Of course we could use some extra crew to prop up the sites. Honestly i think it would be a very reasonable request to have different options for crew even if they have the crew integrated. We have that already for the zsu-33-2 where there are generic "russian" and generic "insurgent" variants available. These are technically different unit types at the moment, but they could as easily be switchable in the special tab that came for ground units some years ago, that allows you to customize the visuals.
I mean really, we are talking about developers that decided it would be needed to have shell ejection animations on ground units in a flight simulator. Just put some damned crew on the units and allow us to choose three different kinds: WWII as per coalition, generic "modern" as per coalition, generic insurgent/PMC. Done. Thanks!

[twistking]

I couldn't make this one up:
So there is a bug report about the zsu-23-2 having no textures:

The irony being that this model actually looks way better (in actual gameplay that is !!!) then all recent high fidelity additions. Even during a low passes or when peeking with the TGP you'll never ever notice the texture work (or lack thereof); you will however appreciate that the gun is actually crewed AND that it even has different crew depending on which coalition it is in...

[Callsign112]

On 7/17/2022 at 5:51 PM, Rudel_chw said:

I would actually prefer the crew of artillery units to be individual units & statics, in diverse poses, so that we could place them in whichever disposition we want around the artillery piece, and so that modders could add different liveries to them (winter, summer, etc).  On an ideal world, there could be two sets of crew: one for WW2 and another for 1960-onwards.

In a SIM that reaches for a level of detail that even includes things like the smoke effect for engine fire extinguishers on the Mosquito, having static crew not only runs counter to the quality and level of detail DCS World is attempting to achieve, but it also looks terrible and would cheapen the SIM considerably.

Even the other well known WWII flight SIM, which is known for its extensive use of static ground units and a much lower quality overall is developing animated infantry.

Imagine if the deck crew on the Super Carrier were static! Take that level of detail away from the Super Carrier, and you would take away one of the biggest reason for buying it.

With an increasing popularity in rotary winged aircraft that bring the fight closer to the ground, the need for more detailed/modeled ground units is increasing, not decreasing.

[Rudel_chw]

43 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

...  having static crew not only runs counter to the quality and level of detail DCS World is attempting to achieve, but it also looks terrible and would cheapen the SIM considerably.

 

I was just trying to be realistic with what we can actually get ... look terrible?  and the static crews, that some artillery already has, looks good?  I want not just the two people sitted on the gun, but figures for the loaders, unit commanders ... even if static they do enhance the gun and look much better than an empty gun placement .. I dont really need animation as I will not be watching them up close from my fighter's cockpit.

 

43 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Imagine if the deck crew on the Super Carrier were static! Take that level of detail away from the Super Carrier, and you would take away one of the biggest reason for buying it.

 

Well, that's why the SC isn't free, isnt it?  ... besides having animated ground crew on your airbase, where you have them up close, is not at all the same thing as animated gun crew.

 

[BIGNEWY]

Its simple. We can release the models we have ready without crew, or we can wait for crew to be modelled. 

If we wait and it takes time we get complaints. 

If we release without crew we get complaints. 

Can not win really

[Callsign112]

I hear you Rudel, and get your point. I was just stating my own preference and opinion on the issue.

I certainly get how 12 years ago static crew and low res maps were acceptable for a combat simulator that was completely focused on flight simulation. But I also get how after 12+ years of innovation and improvement the community in general wants more realism. 

I even get how you might not take notice of improved dynamic Ai ground units while enjoying your BVR dogfight, but to the guys/gals fighting in rotary winged aircraft/armored vehicles, animated ground crew/improved Ai on your air base where you have them up close is exactly the same thing as the ground units they are trying to engage.

 

10 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Its simple. We can release the models we have ready without crew, or we can wait for crew to be modelled. 

If we wait and it takes time we get complaints. 

If we release without crew we get complaints. 

Can not win really

I completely get and understand the point you are raising BIGNEWY, and that is why even though I often point to the need for improved Ai/ground/naval units, I would never use it as a reason to stop supporting ED and DCS World.

I am more than happy when we receive any and all assets, especially when they incorporate the level of quality and detail associated with the DCS brand. And if that means not including the animated crew with the initial release helps speed up the release, then so be it. But I would be a lot more happier if I knew the animated crew would eventually be added. 

So in my books at least, ED is the clear winner in the combat simulation space even if the waiting gets painful at times.

[Kang]

On 7/22/2022 at 2:26 PM, BIGNEWY said:

Its simple. We can release the models we have ready without crew, or we can wait for crew to be modelled. 

If we wait and it takes time we get complaints. 

If we release without crew we get complaints. 

Can not win really

Definitely true. Can't please everyone. But waaaait a minute... does that imply that crews are actually in the making?

On 7/21/2022 at 10:32 PM, twistking said:

I couldn't make this one up:
So there is a bug report about the zsu-23-2 having no textures:

That is actually a bit weird, because... the ZU-23 does have textures. It just so happens that the things were mostly just painted olive green and that's it.

[FalcoGer]

On 7/22/2022 at 2:26 PM, BIGNEWY said:

Its simple. We can release the models we have ready without crew, or we can wait for crew to be modelled. 

If we wait and it takes time we get complaints. 

If we release without crew we get complaints. 

Can not win really

Don't be silly. You already have the models for infantry. All you need to do is pull the skeleton points around a bit to make them fit onto the new weaponry. Surely your engine can do at least that very basic thing? I mean you do have working skeleton animations for carrier crew and the newer infantry models. I for one couldn't care less about the patches on their arms or if they have the correct helmet on. You can always add the details later.

Besides, you really shouldn't be having the crew as part of the weapon model in the first place. If you look at other games, the infantry in a car isn't part of the car. Reasons:

1. Storage. You have 1 model of some guy, instead of having the same model of some guy baked into 50 different units

2. Reusing assets. No need to do modeling work (delaying production as we see here) over and over and over again

3. Extensibility. Later down the line the crew might disembark from their vehicles. Now you don't need to make a new model without the crew, taking extra storage and yet again, the crew as a model. Both taking time to develop and drive space

For instance if a pilot ejects right now, it generates a generic pilot model. Instead you could create two models. The aircraft, and the pilot (to simplify, obviously the aircraft has more parts that constituate it's parts, such as the ejection seat or canopy for instance). And voila, you get for free the correct model for an ejected pilot.

Edited July 23, 2022 by FalcoGer

[twistking]

*bump*

ED you got your priorities wrong. Before releasing new ground units, finish the one you released years ago. The AAA pieces are important to a flight sim. Much more so than yet another ultra high detail model of yet another MBT variant. AAA is present in nearly every mission and it's still magically crewless guns.
Why do you model other vehicles to such ridiculously high level of detail and leave the arguably more important assets unfinished?

[upyr1]

On 7/17/2022 at 4:51 PM, Rudel_chw said:

I would actually prefer the crew of artillery units to be individual units & statics, in diverse poses, so that we could place them in whichever disposition we want around the artillery piece, and so that modders could add different liveries to them (winter, summer, etc).  On an ideal world, there could be two sets of crew: one for WW2 and another for 1960-onwards.

The individual units would be fine if it won't kill our CPUs.

 

On 7/22/2022 at 7:26 AM, BIGNEWY said:

Its simple. We can release the models we have ready without crew, or we can wait for crew to be modelled. 

If we wait and it takes time we get complaints. 

If we release without crew we get complaints. 

Can not win really

I figure the best solution is to get them out and then add the crew.

edit

Depending on the work load I think @Rudel_chw may have a good idea. With the infantry updates being worked up add a unit called crew member that will operate the guns and have them show up when you place a gun. At first they might just stand around looking the part  

 

Edited January 20 by upyr1

[upyr1]

On 1/19/2025 at 4:07 AM, twistking said:

*bump*

ED you got your priorities wrong. Before releasing new ground units, finish the one you released years ago. The AAA pieces are important to a flight sim. Much more so than yet another ultra high detail model of yet another MBT variant. AAA is present in nearly every mission and it's still magically crewless guns.
Why do you model other vehicles to such ridiculously high level of detail and leave the arguably more important assets unfinished?

I'm wondering what they have in the works right now. ED has to be careful on what the release and don't release. One side they have to keep the hype up for what deeper in the pipeline but they also have to focus on what is coming up

Edited January 20 by upyr1

[Fitzcarraldo]

I would prefer having simple crew without animations over waiting for the perfect high fidelity solution to arrive in 10 years. I do enjoy the visual detail of newer AI assets but in the end all those little details on ground units don't matter for anything but cool promotional videos and screenshots.

The complete absence of crew on the other hand is a real problem for gameplay and immersion. The old ZSU-23mm is very ugly up close, but in practice it's a much better asset than the newer AAA options, because from the air and/or when viewed through a TGP the quality is "good enough" while it also has visible crew.

[upyr1]

14 hours ago, Fitzcarraldo said:

I would prefer having simple crew without animations over waiting for the perfect high fidelity solution to arrive in 10 years. I do enjoy the visual detail of newer AI assets but in the end all those little details on ground units don't matter for anything but cool promotional videos and screenshots.

The complete absence of crew on the other hand is a real problem for gameplay and immersion. The old ZSU-23mm is very ugly up close, but in practice it's a much better asset than the newer AAA options, because from the air and/or when viewed through a TGP the quality is "good enough" while it also has visible crew.

same-