"First Person Shooter" on DCS World

[draconus]

4 hours ago, cfrag said:

Allow me to point to the 240 km/h Leo II, or the aircraft carrier that stops on a dime. Vehicle physics outside of aircraft in DCS need major improvements.

Yes, indeed but bugs or wrongly implemented features are not really interesting in this topic.

4 hours ago, cfrag said:

And that is where you and I strongly disagree.

Yes, we disagree, mostly about the scale of the project. You talk about full FPS game with looks and feel of AAA shooter. This would take years to develop and I see no reason nor future for this kind of project.

What is feasible and possible to create in months is adding simple fps features for infantry man like run, crawl, crouch, swim, ability to fire weapons, throw grenades and embark/disembark the vehicles (as passenger). Maybe such basic level wouldn't be satisfying for you but thanks for sharpexing the wish anyway.

Edited May 13, 2024 by draconus

[cfrag]

3 minutes ago, draconus said:

Yes, indeed but bugs or wrongly implemented features are not really interesting in this topic.

They are if you exhort “realism” as you did.

4 minutes ago, draconus said:

Yes, we disagree, mostly about the scale of the project. You talk about full FPS game with looks and feel of AAA shooter.

No, I’m talking about an FPS shooter with some degree of realism - the realism that you pointed to and apparently like so much. It’s really not my fault that you are grading an a curve and apparently (conveniently?) forget what you just wrote. For the record, and to iterate, in case your memory fails you again: I’m not against this wishlist item. 

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me.

[Silver_Dragon]

4 hours ago, cfrag said:

"Because we can?" I guess that's one way of looking at it.

Now you are just goading me . Allow me to point to the 240 km/h Leo II, or the aircraft carrier that stops on a dime. Vehicle physics outside of aircraft in DCS need major improvements.

Repeating this mantra over and over again will not change reality. DCS World has never had realistic physics for vehicles or ships, and CA was never planning to change this. It's just coming up with a nonsensical argument.

4 hours ago, cfrag said:

You surely know how to push my buttons. "Undo", "Multi-object select".

And that is where you and I strongly disagree. Just getting vehicle physics to tolerable levels would be non-trivial. Let's ignore all naval units (so no 'free pirated ship' missions, but maybe a 'capture the oil rig). Upgrading ground AI for FPS level of play? That's another big block. We disagree on "scenery detail", so let's ignore maps (which I consider a gigantic investment). Getting some of the required gear for infantry to a tolerable level (equipment: lets say 4 types of fatigues (2 each for red/blue), men only, 4 side arms, 4 long rifles, 4 heavy weapons, 4 types of grenades, some special equipment, munitions, armor, radio: physics modelling, aural and artwork alone) will be a rather big investment - in my eyes. What constitutes 'not much effort' to you? 5 person years? 10? Where I live, 5 person years are the equivalent of some 500'000 USD. How much effort do you guess it would take to bring CA to an acceptable FPS level of playability? I honestly don't know, but having worked in software (including entertainment) for quite some time, I seriously doubt that we can get it in with anything less than 5 person years (1'000 person days - 5 people working one year on this exclusively), probably a lot more. What's your guess?

Quite possibly the investment, equipment, experience and resources for an "acceptable" FPS is much greater than that. Only the Bf-109K-4 module was that amount, so let's imagine the investment that adding playable infantry in DCS World may require, we would be talking about a totally new "game", as well as vehicles and ships (all separate on funtionality).

[cfrag]

14 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Repeating this mantra over and over again will not change reality. DCS World has never had realistic physics for vehicles or ships, and CA was never planning to change this. It's just coming up with a nonsensical argument.

I guess there was a lot lost in translation - you are entirely making my point: CA and DCS aren't built for land/sea vehicles, and their 'realism' is rock bottom. This is not a criticism, it's a fact that results from what DCS was actually built for and excels at: aircraft physics. A corollary of this is that making something realistic in the ground unit/naval unit realm will likely be expensive.

14 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Quite possibly the investment, equipment, experience and resources for an "acceptable" FPS is much greater than that.

Agreed. We won't know for sure, and can make educated guesses. The amount of money required to do so is not a direct vote against that kind of module/expansion. But it does reduce the likelihood of ever being made reality from a business perspective.

Edited May 14, 2024 by cfrag

[Silver_Dragon]

Casmo TV video, the "FPS M4" has available on normal game, no only on VR (1:13).

By Miltech-5 that funtionality will be added to the Bo-105.