noted Tank modules

[Ikaros]

I would like to see full fidelity tank modules like Abrams, Challenger, T-72, etc, one day. 

[Mars Exulte]

I know it was considered once many years ago. If you were unaware, Steel Beasts Pro is literally for tanks what DCS is for aircraft.

[Silver_Dragon]

5 hours ago, Ikaros said:

I would like to see full fidelity tank modules like Abrams, Challenger, T-72, etc, one day. 

That require ED build Ground module teams and implement all new branch technology. 

[Ikaros]

On 1/28/2023 at 2:34 AM, Mars Exulte said:

I know it was considered once many years ago. If you were unaware, Steel Beasts Pro is literally for tanks what DCS is for aircraft.

I know of Steel Beasts. The graphics for the tanks would be a lot better inside DCS though if done to the standard of the latest aircraft modules though, plus we have the dynamic campaign coming soon so that would be an aspect not in other tank sims. Multiplayer would be bigger in DCS I imagine also.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

We really need better ground handling and physics before anything happens.

[biasedbill]

I'd imagine it's a bit of chicken and egg thing. Hard to add it without the groundwork, why bother adding ground work if we're not going to do it.

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, biasedbill said:

I'd imagine it's a bit of chicken and egg thing

Well, the egg's there: Combined Arms. Only problem: it's a stinker. Atrocious. The only ED product I ever regretted purchasing (and that includes the Hawk).

And it does prove @MiG21bisFishbedL's point: ground physics need a re-work before even the existing CA can get upgraded to merely "abysmal".

Edited February 2, 2023 by cfrag

[M1Combat]

GHPC?

[biasedbill]

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

Well, the egg's there: Combined Arms. Only problem: it's a stinker. Atrocious. The only ED product I ever regretted purchasing (and that includes the Hawk).

And it does prove @MiG21bisFishbedL's point: ground physics need a re-work before even the existing CA can get upgraded to merely "abysmal".

 

And one module I've avoided as a result of hearing the horror stories. To the point I admittedly forgot about its existence. In the case you mentioned, they need to get done. Upgrading CA and ground physics can be done at the same time. Or just the physics. Regardless, they'd need to want to do it and start. My impression is CA hasn't changed for a while. And I'd agree. Hard to dream of full tank simulators if the simplified ones (CA) aren't great to play.

[shagrat]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb cfrag:

Well, the egg's there: Combined Arms. Only problem: it's a stinker. Atrocious. The only ED product I ever regretted purchasing (and that includes the Hawk).

And it does prove @MiG21bisFishbedL's point: ground physics need a re-work before even the existing CA can get upgraded to merely "abysmal".

 

The reason for that "module", was an accidental release of something similar to the JTAC/Ground Commander feature, in the DCS: A-10C Warthog beta-phase.

Everyone was instantly hooked, but unfortunately the contract with the Air National Guard did not allow to use this.

After a lot of pleas and requests, ED basically created Combined Arms from scratch, with the main focus on providing a human JTAC option, control over artillery fire missions and as an add on, rudimentary control over ground units.

Another most underrated feature is to allow pilots to issue commands (waypoints, attacks, etc.) from the F10 map. That is very handy when capturing airfields, or in combination with CTLD and dropping troops/APCs with helicopters or C-130s...

It never was intended as a "DCS: Tank Simulator". 

[shagrat]

Am 1.2.2023 um 02:09 schrieb Ikaros:

Multiplayer would be bigger in DCS I imagine also.

Who would like to jump into a tank, ride a good 20-30 minutes towards the objective to get hit by a Hellfire, Vikhr, Maverick or LGB?

Typically DCS MP missions cover pretty big areas, if they involve planes. That means long travel distance for tanks, or "spawn points" near objectives.

The 3D-RealTimeStrategy aspect could be interesting, but that desperately needs at least a simple, more standard RTS interface that allows for "select by rectangle", "Set as control group 1-4" or similar.

 

[biasedbill]

40 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Typically DCS MP missions cover pretty big areas, if they involve planes. That means long travel distance for tanks, or "spawn points" near objectives.

Or allowing players to jump into the vehicle for the good parts would also be an option? So RTS + take direct control.

[Ikaros]

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

Who would like to jump into a tank, ride a good 20-30 minutes towards the objective to get hit by a Hellfire, Vikhr, Maverick or LGB?

To be fair that's usually my experience flying planes and helicopters in DCS and yet I still keep playing.

[Silver_Dragon]

2 hours ago, shagrat said:

The reason for that "module", was an accidental release of something similar to the JTAC/Ground Commander feature, in the DCS: A-10C Warthog beta-phase.

Everyone was instantly hooked, but unfortunately the contract with the Air National Guard did not allow to use this.

After a lot of pleas and requests, ED basically created Combined Arms from scratch, with the main focus on providing a human JTAC option, control over artillery fire missions and as an add on, rudimentary control over ground units.

Another most underrated feature is to allow pilots to issue commands (waypoints, attacks, etc.) from the F10 map. That is very handy when capturing airfields, or in combination with CTLD and dropping troops/APCs with helicopters or C-130s...

It never was intended as a "DCS: Tank Simulator". 

@shagrat, the JTAC funtionality has not coming from A-10C ANG module. Was building first as the UK Royal Army JTAC Trainer talked on the old Jim Mackonochie 2008 videos as a military goverment product previously. On fact, the JTAC funtionality and other CA funtionality was implemented on that product eartly to CA release.

Other funtionality was show on old The Batlesim videos, now deleted. The old videos, never was show "Tank Simulation" funtionality, only CA funtionality.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[bies]

It would be great for sure, if well made, but it is incomparably more time and resurce consuming than most people think since it would require total enviroment overhaul to be worth.

1) It would require far more complex infantry AI, animations, wehicles AI, artillery, mines etc.

2) It would require overhaul of ground physics, tanks don't swim like ships, cross country terrain changes tanks capabilities to a big degree.

3) It would require far more detailed terrain mesh and overall level of detail which could be impossible without dramatic preformance decrease or special far smaller and more detailed map specially made for tanks.

Investing big amount of time, money, resources to make realistic tank module with fire control system, interior for at lest 3 crew members, crew AI, transmission, gearbox, engine, suspension, periscopes and optical devices, armor penetration models and armor models - making all of that without the whole tanks enviroment overhaul would be kind of wasted effort.

DCS engine has been created as aircraft simulation so absolutely necessery compromises has been made accordingly - not to make it unplayable maps have ground mesh, ground units AI, infantry, terrain modeling etc. very much simplified. It would be fantastic, an ultimate experience to have ArmA3 level of detail and DCS scale and realism at the same time, but it is probably impossible with todays technology.

Driving high fidelity very well modeled expensive tank module on table-flat terrain without hull down position, with asphalt grip everywhere, empty and low detail, against wastly simplified AI infantry, other ground vehicles and many other simplifications may not be the best experience. Time will tell, if someone would like to make it i support the idea if technically possible.

Edited February 2, 2023 by bies

[shagrat]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Silver_Dragon:

@shagrat, the JTAC funtionality has not coming from A-10C ANG module. Was building first as the UK Royal Army JTAC Trainer talked on the old Jim Mackonochie 2008 videos as a military goverment product previously. On fact, the JTAC funtionality and other CA funtionality was implemented on that product eartly to CA release.

Other funtionality was show on old The Batlesim videos, now deleted. The old videos, never was show "Tank Simulation" funtionality, only CA funtionality.

 

Well, the JTAC view was accidentally implemented in the DCS: A-10C Warthog beta (and immediately removed in the next patch). This instigated the whole requests and pleas to include the JTAC again.

ED's answer at that time, was along the lines of "they are not allowed to implement it, for contractual reasons".

When they added CA, it was a bit different from the accidental JTAC view, had more features and if I understood correct was not just an implementation, of the previous leaked beta feature, but a new development with different and more features.

[SparxOne]

I hate to have to bring another game here to make comparisons, but in my opinion, this one is worth it. Talks about upgrading CA to a level of better tank controls etc is nothing new around DCS, i can understand the argument that it is not feasable because X Y Z, but when looking at IL2, which is a WW2 flight simulator, or at least close to it, one could say they never had the game built to accomodate ground tank control etc, yet they did, and in quite a decent way if you ask me !

 

The terrains have not been changed to make it look better for tanks if i'm not mistaken, they've always been this way, DCS could do the same, ground level detail is good enough to use CA and still enjoy yourself. Tank interiors in IL2 is what probably stands out, but once again, if it were up to me, it would really not be necessary, or really just a nice to have. CA could be like IL2 tank battles if a few modifications were made to make the ground war feel a little better, but overall, my feeling like is if IL2 was able to do it in a game/sim focused on aircraft, DCS can surely do it, but we know the deal here, as ED have said before, it's not about not wanting to, it's about having the ressources and time.

Edit : This makes it even clearer -> 

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by SparxOne

[draconus]

4 hours ago, SparxOne said:

...DCS could do the same, ground level detail is good enough to use CA and still enjoy yourself.

True. My idea is to implement small steps, slowly, constantly improving CA, just like they do with every EA product. I'd start with VR ready open hatch (with binoculars and NVGs options) and gun/rifle views. Then add simple interior view for a driver. Follow that with operator body. Stuff like that with parallel DCS core improvements like ground units DM would greatly improve at least 1st person play (heck, even add simple FPS soldier control).

[Oubaas]

I have both DCS World and Steel Beasts Pro PE. But I would love to see CA get more attention. And more helicopters and CAS aircraft for DCS.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 2/2/2023 at 8:46 AM, biasedbill said:

I'd imagine it's a bit of chicken and egg thing. Hard to add it without the groundwork, why bother adding ground work if we're not going to do it.

I'd have to completely agree. I'd love to see some armor sims in DCS, give more depth to the physics, and it'd really make providing CAS for actual players even more compelling than it already is.

[NineLine]

I personally would love full fidelity ground units as well, I hope we see it one day but I have not seen any plans for 3rd Party interest as of yet.

[shagrat]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb NineLine:

I personally would love full fidelity ground units as well, I hope we see it one day but I have not seen any plans for 3rd Party interest as of yet.

Even with detailed interior stations, detailed armor penetration/reactive armor simulation, sophisticated internal damage modeling, I think one crucial addition we need for a "DCS: Leopard 2A6 tank commander" is working defensive systems, like smoke grenades and smoke generator to create a protective screen against visual and laser tracking.

Even then, riding in a tank over open terrain with relatively little cover, against a horde of CAS assets like AH-64D, Mi-24P, A-10C, Su-25 and the occasional F-1x with a TGP and bombs to spare, does not sound like a "fun" experience, especially in multiplayer... Maybe co-op, together with proper air cover, but it sounds like a pretty masochistic experience, in our typical DCS environment.

On the other hand, if mission designers create a more tank simulation friendly mission... Why not?

[Exorcet]

On 2/2/2023 at 1:57 PM, shagrat said:

Who would like to jump into a tank, ride a good 20-30 minutes towards the objective to get hit by a Hellfire, Vikhr, Maverick or LGB?

People bring this up so much, not just for tanks but aircraft as well. How often does it happen? If it's a big deal DCS already has a jump feature for planes. Tanks and whatnot could be individually controller or tank platoons could be assigned to a player, giving you 4 tanks to jump into and play with.

On 2/2/2023 at 1:57 PM, shagrat said:

Typically DCS MP missions cover pretty big areas, if they involve planes. That means long travel distance for tanks, or "spawn points" near objectives.

 

It really depends on the mission. The air battle can be huge, but the ground battle might be local (ie WWII over all of Europe vs D-Day being in a small part of France). The ground forces don't have to operate from the airbases.

On 2/2/2023 at 5:35 PM, bies said:

It would be great for sure, if well made, but it is incomparably more time and resurce consuming than most people think since it would require total enviroment overhaul to be worth.

Bringing a FF tank to DCS would require a lot of work yes. It's not realistic at the moment, but we can do better than CA. I think tanks at the level of something like War Thunder would work in DCS, the biggest change outside the tanks themselves would need to be the AI so they're not all seeing snipers.

On 2/3/2023 at 3:19 AM, draconus said:

True. My idea is to implement small steps, slowly, constantly improving CA, just like they do with every EA product. I'd start with VR ready open hatch (with binoculars and NVGs options) and gun/rifle views. Then add simple interior view for a driver. Follow that with operator body. Stuff like that with parallel DCS core improvements like ground units DM would greatly improve at least 1st person play (heck, even add simple FPS soldier control).

I also feel like this is the path to higher fidelity ground forces. It will be a long, long road, but we might get there one day.

[draconus]

3 hours ago, shagrat said:

Even then, riding in a tank over open terrain with relatively little cover, against a horde of CAS assets like AH-64D, Mi-24P, A-10C, Su-25 and the occasional F-1x with a TGP and bombs to spare, does not sound like a "fun" experience, especially in multiplayer...

It can be also horde of tanks with air superiority on your side, you know.

[shagrat]

vor 18 Stunden schrieb draconus:

It can be also horde of tanks with air superiority on your side, you know.

Yep, but in my experience, there is limit to people interested in jumping into a tank, or a backseat/front seat instead of flying aircraft/helicopters in a flight focused simulation.

I don't mean it would not be a good addition, but as I mentioned in the rest of that post the key is to get realistic defense systems to make armor survivable and ensure the typical scenario is something beyond hopping into one tank after the other, while dodging hellfires and LGBs...

That can be done through mission design, to some extent, but most aspects relate to damage and weapon modeling, AI etc.

So the point is: it's way more complex than adding a DCS level tank module.

I would love to get sophisticated Tank/IFV modules etc. but I see the challenge...