First person in DCS - Let's discuss the idea and feasibilty.

[Beirut]

Sometimes it's just the case that the person in charge of a thing has their own vision of it and doesn't want to change. Maybe ED simply doesn't want a full ground aspect to DCS... because!

 

Makes me think of when I asked my sister to make a chocolate cheesecake. She said she liked to make normal cheesecake. I said yeah, but we'd all love it if you made chocolate cheesecake, because she made awesome cheesecake. She said we were free to go and buy some whenever we wanted to. She just wanted to make cheesecake. 

 

Thus my fattening analogy. 

[Silver_Dragon]

17 minutes ago, Beirut said:

Sometimes it's just the case that the person in charge of a thing has their own vision of it and doesn't want to change. Maybe ED simply doesn't want a full ground aspect to DCS... because!

 

Makes me think of when I asked my sister to make a chocolate cheesecake. She said she liked to make normal cheesecake. I said yeah, but we'd all love it if you made chocolate cheesecake, because she made awesome cheesecake. She said we were free to go and buy some whenever we wanted to. She just wanted to make cheesecake. 

 

Thus my fattening analogy. 

I think that kind of comment is very unfortunate... creating a realistic ground warfare environment, be it vehicles or FPS, is of a higher complexity than any aerial mod that could have been done in DCS World.

Let us remember that CA is not a firm base to expand the land environment, almost 99% remains to be investigated and built. New teams are needed to start this work from scratch.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

15 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Let us remember that CA is not a firm base to expand the land environment, 

This.

[Beirut]

26 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

I think that kind of comment is very unfortunate...

 

 

It's not unfortunate, it's simply the case sometimes. There are people who do a thing who sometimes want to keep that thing within the vision they have, regardless of what others want.

 

It happens all the time.

 

26 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

creating a realistic ground warfare environment, be it vehicles or FPS, is of a higher complexity than any aerial mod that could have been done in DCS World.

 

I don't know if that is the case or not. Others know much more about building modules than I do.

 

26 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Let us remember that CA is not a firm base to expand the land environment, almost 99% remains to be investigated and built. New teams are needed to start this work from scratch.

 

Possibly yes. I suspect you know more about it than I do.

[draconus]

8 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Let us remember that CA is not a firm base to expand the land environment, almost 99% remains to be investigated and built. New teams are needed to start this work from scratch.

Meaningless statement. It very much depends on the scope of such expansion.

Land and sea units are planned to have DM update within DCS core. That alone will make the surface warfare much better and I bet it will drag more changes with it.

I wouldn't read too much into the 3rd parties not active on the forum. They may very well keep talking to ED and working on something behind the scenes. You never know until it is announced.

[3WA]

23 hours ago, Beirut said:

Maybe ED simply doesn't want a full ground aspect to DCS... because!

This is EXACTLY the feeling I get.

[Raviar]

On 9/28/2022 at 12:09 AM, Beirut said:

Sometimes it's just the case that the person in charge of a thing has their own vision of it and doesn't want to change. Maybe ED simply doesn't want a full ground aspect to DCS... because!

 

Makes me think of when I asked my sister to make a chocolate cheesecake. She said she liked to make normal cheesecake. I said yeah, but we'd all love it if you made chocolate cheesecake, because she made awesome cheesecake. She said we were free to go and buy some whenever we wanted to. She just wanted to make cheesecake. 

 

Thus my fattening analogy. 

I dont think so, its just matter of resource, cost and benefits, ED has 3rd parties who already delivered some terrains ! its not easy to redo the work even if the ground aspect in Engine get ready ! will take time, while we are waiting for very basic features of 2018 released hornet ! so ... I believe it might be achievable by 5 to 10 years from now !

[Beirut]

2 hours ago, Raviar said:

I dont think so, its just matter of resource, cost and benefits, ED has 3rd parties who already delivered some terrains ! its not easy to redo the work even if the ground aspect in Engine get ready ! will take time, while we are waiting for very basic features of 2018 released hornet ! so ... I believe it might be achievable by 5 to 10 years from now !

 

I hear ya, but it remains the case that people often want to do a thing their way because it's their thing. 

 

As possible as it is that ED or a third party will do a full fidelity T-72, it is also possible that ED will simply say they are not interested for no other reason than they don't feel like it. 

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

17 hours ago, Beirut said:

 

I hear ya, but it remains the case that people often want to do a thing their way because it's their thing. 

 

As possible as it is that ED or a third party will do a full fidelity T-72, it is also possible that ED will simply say they are not interested for no other reason than they don't feel like it. 

 

Opening up to ground vehicles, as much as I'd love to see that, requires a serious sit down to talk about the engine we have. We will need a lot of things for that. We'll need much better ground handling physics, damage and penetration calculations, and other such things. It needs to be ascertained if this can be done with minimal impact on overall performance.

I'd certainly not lament a 3rd party giving us a T-72 or other AFV, but I'd feel a lot more confident in the product if ED were to do it since they really can get under the hood as it would be sorely needed.

[upyr1]

13 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Opening up to ground vehicles, as much as I'd love to see that, requires a serious sit down to talk about the engine we have. We will need a lot of things for that. We'll need much better ground handling physics, damage and penetration calculations, and other such things. It needs to be ascertained if this can be done with minimal impact on overall performance.

I'd certainly not lament a 3rd party giving us a T-72 or other AFV, but I'd feel a lot more confident in the product if ED were to do it since they really can get under the hood as it would be sorely needed.

This is why I keep saying Eagle needs to work on another Combined Arms and a Naval module,  what would be cost effecive to do for the current Combined Arms, but I think at the minimum I'd like them to work under the hood of DCS core and expansion modules to replace asset packs 

[Inf]

Not sure I think it needs expanding into full blown FPS mechanics, but I'd really love a 1st-person walkaround where you walk up to your aircraft, climb the ladder and get in.

You can already kind of walk around after ejecting, and it's strangely surprisingly immersive. If the controls were a bit better it'd be great. And its a shame they're not network-synced.