high fidelity tank

[diveplane]

oh yes please ED....

[razo+r]

That would be pure suffering in the current ground environment of DCS.

[Gunfreak]

33 minutes ago, razo+r said:

That would be pure suffering in the current ground environment of DCS.

Yeah, that would be a total waste of resources without also rebuilding ground combat from the ground up.

AI, pathfinding, damage modeling, armor modeling etc etc.

[diveplane]

all in good time..

[draconus]

14 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Yeah, that would be a total waste of resources without also rebuilding ground combat from the ground up.

AI, pathfinding, damage modeling, armor modeling etc etc.

So say Apache drivers...

[Lace]

In the meantime...

Gunner HEAT PC

Still very early in development and requires optimisation, but very promising.

[DD_Friar]

I originally came to DCS looking for an option to IL2 Tank Crew and bought Combined Arms.

I have stated in another post that I feel CA could do with some love and Wags did mention that it could be on the long road map along with more WWII stuff due to limited access to modern stock of aircraft, so who knows..

BTW since starting the DCS journey where I bought CA and WWII asset pack I said I would not buy any more as IL2 Great Battles was fine for me...

I now own F14, F16, Apache (my main ride for recent months so I do agree with the above post  ), Huey, Gazelle, Harrier, Super Carrier, Syria, Persian Gulf, Normandy 2 and have F4-E locked on my radar as well as the Chinook...plus A4-e, UH-60, Bronco free mods....

[upyr1]

15 hours ago, razo+r said:

That would be pure suffering in the current ground environment of DCS.

There is no argument that DCS needs a lot of work on the ground and naval environments, however, such improvements need to be done as part of developing these modules. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 10/15/2023 at 4:42 PM, diveplane said:

all in good time..

Proper terrain simulation could add a lot of processing overhead. If by good time, you mean several years, sure. CA needs love, but to expect Steel Beasts in DCS is an immense under taking. It could be a case of that ship having sailed given how many maps we currently have.

GHPC is pretty great, check that out, instead.

[ChaosRifle]

On 10/17/2023 at 3:04 PM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

It could be a case of that ship having sailed given how many maps we currently have.

Lets be honest though, not many people play on anything but Caucasus, PG, or Syria. Sinai looks to be an upcoming good option though. I doubt many people would care if the initial implementation did not support nevada/normandy/falklands as very few people own, or play them. Marianas has weird issues with being on the islands anyways that dont seem related to the trees at all (GPU frame present gets hit randomly and arbitrarily cutting framerates to exactly 1/3, but not always, and even in empty missions.)

also not a stretch for a lot of this to just be handled by the map makers, or existing data - the maps are made of objects placed at coordinates, its not a stretch to just tie into that.

Either way, even for fixed wing players, we need ground unit improvements - most missions are having us fire at stationary objects that might as well be patches of dirt with a tarp for marking the target point, because nothing actually moves or reacts dynamically. Convoys have a lot of issues, and it would be so much more fulfilling for fixed wing guys to do CAS where its actually CAS, not a 'strike mostly abandoned armour units over there' mission.


+1 for wanting a bradley or abrams. Also ground AI improvements - as a mission maker, we sorely need improvements to ground AI: doing anything beyond a target range is like pulling teeth to get them to behave.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

14 hours ago, ChaosRifle said:

Lets be honest though, not many people play on anything but Caucasus, PG, or Syria. Sinai looks to be an upcoming good option though. I doubt many people would care if the initial implementation did not support nevada/normandy/falklands as very few people own, or play them. Marianas has weird issues with being on the islands anyways that dont seem related to the trees at all (GPU frame present gets hit randomly and arbitrarily cutting framerates to exactly 1/3, but not always, and even in empty missions.)

also not a stretch for a lot of this to just be handled by the map makers, or existing data - the maps are made of objects placed at coordinates, its not a stretch to just tie into that.

Either way, even for fixed wing players, we need ground unit improvements - most missions are having us fire at stationary objects that might as well be patches of dirt with a tarp for marking the target point, because nothing actually moves or reacts dynamically. Convoys have a lot of issues, and it would be so much more fulfilling for fixed wing guys to do CAS where its actually CAS, not a 'strike mostly abandoned armour units over there' mission.


+1 for wanting a bradley or abrams. Also ground AI improvements - as a mission maker, we sorely need improvements to ground AI: doing anything beyond a target range is like pulling teeth to get them to behave.

Ignoring products is not a good look and ED already does that plenty. I'm not sure adding to that backlog of work would go over very well. Sure, initial roll out would ideally be for the Black Sea, PG, and Syria, but how long until the others? Should ED saddle third parties with having to go through the maps to add different ground frictions and behaviors for vehicles? That already sounds like a giant mess. After all, there's a pretty sizable group of WWII enthusiasts who'd love to see that level of fidelity for their Shermans and Panzers. This would be a project that could potentially balloon real fast.

In actuality, the sanest choice would be to actually give CA the love it so desperately needs. Better AI pathfinding, decision making, and options are the first stepping stone before we ever see better armored simulation. We'd REALLY need some AI changes if we wanted IFVs like the Bradley or BMP-2. What's the point in using those if you can't deploy and support infantry, you know?

To me, the damning proof is in CA's state. It desperately needs a little bit more love, some better physics, and handling, but it isn't getting that. Using it feels so rough, so janky, and not very engaging at the end of it. It really lacks immersion. What ED should do is revisit CA and bump up the standards of vehicles. Not to a full-fidelity level, perhaps, but to a level comparable to FC3. Some decent interiors, the ability to ride turned out so you can see your whole AFV, etc. Pick a few to update and provide those updates overtime. Especially the GHPC approach of giving us an external camera riding in the turned out position and completely absenting rendered interiors. It's vastly superior to what we have at the moment. And very, very doable.

There's a very reasonable and attainable goal for them, but we haven't seen them even consider moving in that direction. Hopefully, this catches the eye of someone and they at least workshop it.

[SparxOne]

15 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Ignoring products is not a good look and ED already does that plenty. I'm not sure adding to that backlog of work would go over very well. Sure, initial roll out would ideally be for the Black Sea, PG, and Syria, but how long until the others? Should ED saddle third parties with having to go through the maps to add different ground frictions and behaviors for vehicles? That already sounds like a giant mess. After all, there's a pretty sizable group of WWII enthusiasts who'd love to see that level of fidelity for their Shermans and Panzers. This would be a project that could potentially balloon real fast.

In actuality, the sanest choice would be to actually give CA the love it so desperately needs. Better AI pathfinding, decision making, and options are the first stepping stone before we ever see better armored simulation. We'd REALLY need some AI changes if we wanted IFVs like the Bradley or BMP-2. What's the point in using those if you can't deploy and support infantry, you know?

To me, the damning proof is in CA's state. It desperately needs a little bit more love, some better physics, and handling, but it isn't getting that. Using it feels so rough, so janky, and not very engaging at the end of it. It really lacks immersion. What ED should do is revisit CA and bump up the standards of vehicles. Not to a full-fidelity level, perhaps, but to a level comparable to FC3. Some decent interiors, the ability to ride turned out so you can see your whole AFV, etc. Pick a few to update and provide those updates overtime. Especially the GHPC approach of giving us an external camera riding in the turned out position and completely absenting rendered interiors. It's vastly superior to what we have at the moment. And very, very doable.

There's a very reasonable and attainable goal for them, but we haven't seen them even consider moving in that direction. Hopefully, this catches the eye of someone and they at least workshop it.

This isn't totally related to what you say, but in a way unfortunately goes to show the development time being given to CA/ground stuff compared to the rest of the Sim for the past years. I came across this on a Discord the other day and i have to admit, it made me laugh, not in a mocking way, but more in a way of realization of where the resources have been lacking the most over the years, DCS is beautifull, unfortunately not everywhere

 

 

 

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 10/21/2023 at 7:56 PM, SparxOne said:

This isn't totally related to what you say, but in a way unfortunately goes to show the development time being given to CA/ground stuff compared to the rest of the Sim for the past years. I came across this on a Discord the other day and i have to admit, it made me laugh, not in a mocking way, but more in a way of realization of where the resources have been lacking the most over the years, DCS is beautifull, unfortunately not everywhere

 

 

 

 

I have one of those old model's as one of my discord server's emojis.

[SparxOne]

1 minute ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

I have one of those old model's as one of my discord server's emojis.

Did you watch the video i attached though ? The comparison from the video with the image is really what shines in what i explained in my message

[draconus]

On 10/22/2023 at 2:56 AM, SparxOne said:

Kill me, but I'm pretty ok with that kind of quality for infantry in DCS if it has decent animation. Not opposing improvements of course.

It's about the FF tank simulation though, not CA improvements in this thread, so guys, here it is:

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/967-wish-list/

On 10/21/2023 at 10:49 AM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Should ED saddle third parties with having to go through the maps to add different ground frictions and behaviors for vehicles?

The info from TDK is already there on maps. ED can just change the vehicle behavior depending on that info combining with weather and temperature info.

[Tank50us]

The main question I pose is: Which tanks to start with for such an undertaking?

The M1 is still in service, despite being so iconic, and the same can be said for the Challengers, Leopard 2, and T-90, and all of them are still highly classified.

My suggestion would be the M60A3, T-55, and Centurian

The reason?

• All three use armor that can be accurately measured.
• Each were produced in the thousands, so examples can be found just about anywhere.
• All three have a host of modifications that can be added very easily (such as Reactive Armor)

The only thing to remember is that to create an accurate tank environment, you'd also have to create an AI that can handle the duties of the crew, with the default position being the Tank Commander. Loader, Gunner, and Driver would all have to be AI operated unless someone sits in those seats.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 10/22/2023 at 10:01 PM, SparxOne said:

Did you watch the video i attached though ? The comparison from the video with the image is really what shines in what i explained in my message

Oh yeah, it's an odd experience to see models left over from as far back as Flaming Cliffs.
 

On 10/23/2023 at 3:47 AM, draconus said:

The info from TDK is already there on maps. ED can just change the vehicle behavior depending on that info combining with weather and temperature info.

Would it be sufficient enough to simulate the differences between mud, asphalt, sand etc., though?

22 hours ago, Tank50us said:

The main question I pose is: Which tanks to start with for such an undertaking?

The M1 is still in service, despite being so iconic, and the same can be said for the Challengers, Leopard 2, and T-90, and all of them are still highly classified.

My suggestion would be the M60A3, T-55, and Centurian

 

Well, first step is to issue FOIA's and other similar measures to see, exactly, what's accessible enough.

Then, just go from there. That said, the real issue is going to be modeling ground physics + CPU computational impact. Once that gets tackled, though? Open the flood gates.

[draconus]

24 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Would it be sufficient enough to simulate the differences between mud, asphalt, sand etc., though?

Sure. The info is already used by taxing aircraft and vehicles. You can drive faster on roads or get stuck in the grass. No wet surfaces are simulated though.

[Mars Exulte]

On 10/15/2023 at 3:26 PM, razo+r said:

That would be pure suffering in the current ground environment of DCS.

 You wouldn't really be mixing the two together on a large scale, TBH. Servers/missions would tend to have a focus on either air or ground, but not both. Nobody would find getting strafed by A-10s every ten minutes fun, and the complexity and scale required to make it work is simply infeasible (in short, aircraft are strategic level assets, tanks are tactical assets and operate at completely different levels) so in practice you would separate them to facilitate reasonable gameplay (ie 'fun'). Ground focused servers would largely tend to delete fast movers and focus on smaller scale engagements with vehicles and possibly limited quantities of helicopters, ala Arma (where fast movers are an after thought that barely functions and everything is more platoon or company oriented focused on a localised area).

 You could absolutely integrate ground vehicles into DCS but as with everything we already have, the scenarios would be designed with it in mind. You can't just haphazardly throw <profanity> together and expect it will translate to a fun experience for everyone.