FPS?

[Kuro6]

You guys ever thought about putting an FPS into your game? Already there is Arma and OFP2, but their flight simulation absolutely sucks. Its a joke. You already have a start on good terrain. If you could get it to the level of OFP2, you could stick in playable infantry and vehicle sims ( ala steel beasts ). What a sim that would be. It would also net you a lot more sales.

 

Flight sims and FPS together is the future.

[element1108]

I don't think the technology is quite there to have both an ARMA/OFP style ground sim merged with a high fidelity air combat simulator. The two require certain "cheats" because processing power just isn't there. ARMA/OFP have a small haze distance to anything above 1000 is inside a cloud layer on a clear day ... but the average foot soldier moves at 5km/h so needs dense forest/vegetation to keep him interested and immersed. Air Combat sims you're covering hundreds of km's with huge view/draw distances that are essential for the simulation of flight.

 

It's a dream though for sure, might possibly see it (HUUUUGE undertaking just on the programming side of things) 10-15 years?

 

I think it's definitely the future though.

[Kuky]

I think this is not gonna happen for many many years (if it ever does). Flight sims and FPS are very, very different... I think they simply do not fit in one game/sim.

[Kuro6]

If you look at the terrain in BS, its pretty much just arma 1 with a few less trees. Really, this game seems to me like Arma 1, just with better aircraft. Stick in a few more buildings and trees with playable infantry and vehicles and you would have Arma 1.

 

If you hover at 3 feet above the ground, looking around everywhere, what is the difference between that and a foot soldier looking around? There is no difference. FPS could be put into this game easily. But of course, you would probably still be limited by netcode to small amounts of people, just like arma or crysis. As for computer power, I play BS on a 2.0 ghz laptop with an 8600 card. The average FPS player has an overclocked high end rig, running with a high end video card. Their machines could easily handle BS. I figure this game with an FPS in it would still not take as much power as Crysis, which brings high end rigs to their knees.

 

There are a lot of players out there looking for the next hardcore infantry sim. I personally don't believe it has been made yet. OFP2 and Arma unfortunately do not deliver. The vehicles / aircraft in them are jokes. They are still just games. People like me are looking for a marriage between FPS and flight / vehicle sims, which will make everything as real as it gets. i.e. the real world.

[ARM505]

I don't think it's too long before it's technically possible - but for a developer to code something so awesomely complex in this financial world, where such a phenomenal quantity of work will still sell fewer copies than 'Super Mario Kart Deluxe!!!!!'....well, that will take a miracle.

[sobek]

If you hover at 3 feet above the ground, looking around everywhere, what is the difference between that and a foot soldier looking around? There is no difference.

 

To you it may look easy, but it definately is not. The military is on the look out for something like that for some time now and they have an enormous budget, still all they have is VBS2, which is essentially ARMA.

 

I don't see this happening in one engine. If it is ever to be done, i think it will be via the way of at least two engines being MP-compatible.

Edited June 19, 2009 by sobek

[nemises]

no reason why you couldnt have different game engines communicating together ... 1 an FPS engine Arma style, the other a flightsim, DCS style ... as long as the physical space conformed topologically, then it really just boils down to sharing positional data and "who fired what / where" between the two engines.

 

..maybe someone should come up with a consolidated multiplayer framework for gaming that all games can share output with other games using the same framework...

 

..or something..

[DarkWanderer]

Flight sims and FPS together is the future.

There's a problem:

A common path, covered by an infantry squad in half an hour - 2 km.

for a tank platoon - 20km

for a fighter group - 400km

That is, for the aicraft pilots, the only place where some action takes place is immediate action theater - where the infantry and the armor battle at the moment. That is not an option because of the resulting "dead" rest of the world.

So, the only way to get a sensible interaction between different kinds of armed forces is MMO-type engine and/or an arcade-like gameplay for all of the levels. A best dream and a worst nightmare of a simmer ;)

[192nd_Erdem]

Of course with some comprimise, because nobody wants to wait 2 hours in front of their computers just to see some action(I'm looking at you WW2OL). But it doesn't necessarily mean we can't get realistic simulation of infantry and vehicles together, which is FUN.

 

Keep the realistic gameplay(weapon handling, damage, armor and systems modelling etc) but at the same time take measures to ensure players can find decent action, and you get a pretty decent game.

 

The problem is this game would cost something like 50 mil, and would take 5-10 years to make :) The only way I see it could be done is to make a modular game (like DCS) and update it constantly over a long time. I'm actually curious about what that new DCS engine will deliver. Maybe we'll get armor(tank) modules over time and in time infantry all working together in a multiplayer environment. Yes it's a pipe dream, but not impossible.

[element1108]

I think it's only a matter of time, I remember the computer show in 1993 and I got to try that virtual reality game...it looked like crap but I was able to look around virtually! The whole setup probably cost around $10,000 ---20 years later...TRACKER IR :) for ~$200

 

ARMA 2 right now is the only way to get that multi role gameplay even though the flight models are pooched. It's still great fun supporting troops on the ground and it becomes more about knowing where the friendlies are relative to the enemy and making sure you don't make a run on your boys.

 

It would be great to have a perfect ARMA style ground rendition that held up for a flight sim.

[LoBiSoMeM]

I don't see this happening in one engine. If it is ever to be done, i think it will be via the way of at least two engines being MP-compatible.

 

Perfect.

 

When I think "DCS Modules" I think this way... It's possible. If not with complex infantry combat, a high quality FPS, with ground units combat: tanks, APCs, etc.

 

In one module, all the CPU with flight model, etc. And the other module only receive the data over the internet. The graphic engine by yourself can be different... Ground units module = better terrain, no need to 500km/h speeds and complex flight dynamics...

 

But this is a new vision. I don't think one company alone can do this work today: high fidelity fight sim with high quality FPS AND high quality tank battle sim... But with cooperation, sharing one concept and split in different potencial markets, with focus on MP, only the sky is the limit... The technology is avaible now. We have ArmAII, BF2, etc...

 

I have a dream... :)

[Eihort]

VBS2 and Steel Beasts Pro (the full version, not PE) can communicate with one another and share data across the networks already, allowing for that type of interaction.

 

Would be awesome to have but I don't think any one company is going to be able to fit it all into one game because of budget constraints even when times are good.

[Kuro6]

I don't know what some of you guys are talking about when you say it is years away. Its already been done. Arma and OFP. Really, the hardest part is the flight and vehicle sims, FPS players are really nothing but a floating camera. There's no flight model or anything. Look at Crysis. The player is nothing but a floating camera with some animation put into it. If you turn off weapon inertia ( just animation, though some of the die hards will never admit it), you can see what your player is, nothing more than a floating camera going in a straight line. VERY simple coding. The real CPU drain in Crysis is the graphics. Not any complex mathematical models. So adding fps to BS would cost very little cpu wise.

 

The problems with putting fps into BS will be adding more network slots for players ( you'll probably want to have at least 40 players, but it really would be good to have a max far beyond that ), and how to make the game fun with a large area. Also, adding as much graphics in the end as a high end computer could handle. I think to the level of Arma 1 would be acceptable, considering the complex flight models already in place. Its not all about graphics. I've been playing Infiltration (UT1 mod) for years, and its ten years old now. People still play it because its the most realistic infantry sim there is. I think the map Battle is a good example for a large Arma style map. The area's not so big that it would be too much for foot soldiers, yet big enough for heli's and planes to get around. Thats for just a single mission map with one objective. If you could put in more players you maybe could have 2 or 3 objectives ( like small towns ) being attacked at once. Then the area could be larger, and it works in better with the need for air support. Believe me, Crysis has some large maps, and with vehicles - the players get around quick. There is need for attack and support by air. People in Crysis are still crying out for jets and larger maps.

 

In the end, like I said, its already been done. Its just that the other guys are coming from the FPS end forwards. I'd like to see DCS do it in the opposite direction, coming from the flight sim, because the hardest part has already been done. FPS is much easier to code than flight sim. Literally, we already have the best parts of the world. All it takes is a little better terrain graphics and models. Then just add some floating cameras with a little animation. :thumbup:

Edited June 19, 2009 by Kuro6

[Weta43]

Look up the guys that ED sub-contract to (I've posted a link in the past you could search for on the forum). They are being paid by the US government (DARPA?) to build exactly the kind of over-arching "meta-engine" that you're talking about. The system is intended to integrate various sims including an FPS and a derivative of the LO code (by the look of it) to allow the simulation of both specific roles, and the integration of those roles in the battle field.

[element1108]

Look up the guys that ED sub-contract to (I've posted a link in the past you could search for on the forum). They are being paid by the US government (DARPA?) to build exactly the kind of over-arching "meta-engine" that you're talking about. The system is intended to integrate various sims including an FPS and a derivative of the LO code (by the look of it) to allow the simulation of both specific roles, and the integration of those roles in the battle field.

 

 

INNNNTERESTING

[Huckle]

Step away from my sim, sir.

[Coolhnd1]

I really don't think you can say it's been done with Arma at least (I haven't played OFP). Although Arma does have some aspects of flight in the engine at best you'd have to say it's a very simple flight simulator with major simplifications because of the rather small world represented in the game.

 

There's an online game called battleground Europe that does have a fairly sophisticated flight sim combined with an reasonably sophisticated FPS where you can play as a pilot, sailer, soldier or tank driver all in the same game. granted it's based on world war II so you don't get jets or hellicopitors but it shows at least that this sort of thing can be done. It isn't easy though and from what I understand requires a very specialized engine.

[Panzertard]

I demand that the DCS allow for FPS as some stage. Due to the groundcrew messing up the loadout my Wingman (*coughalligator159thyesterdaycough*) was sent enroute to a fortified bunker with fueltanks instead of bombs.

 

We absolutly *must* have the ability to shoot the privates to be able to set an example for the rest of the ground crew.

 

I demand a FPS in 1.0.1!

[AussieFX]

 

We absolutly *must* have the ability to shoot the privates to be able to set an example for the rest of the ground crew.

 

I demand a FPS in 1.0.1!

:megalol:

[Kuro6]

I demand that the DCS allow for FPS as some stage. Due to the groundcrew messing up the loadout my Wingman (*coughalligator159thyesterdaycough*) was sent enroute to a fortified bunker with fueltanks instead of bombs.

 

We absolutly *must* have the ability to shoot the privates to be able to set an example for the rest of the ground crew.

 

I demand a FPS in 1.0.1!

 

Hey, fuel tanks will explode if you drop em from high enough altitude!

[leafer]

I think the problem with implementing fps is if the frame rate doesn't kill you then all those flying things will and it wouldn't be so much fun then. Imagine sitting around day dreaming the joy of spraying a wall of lead at some poor sod in a Hog then -- BOOM!

 

Not fun at all. :D

[Kuro6]

I think the problem with implementing fps is if the frame rate doesn't kill you then all those flying things will and it wouldn't be so much fun then. Imagine sitting around day dreaming the joy of spraying a wall of lead at some poor sod in a Hog then -- BOOM!

 

Not fun at all. :D

 

Actually, that happens all the time in Crysis.

 

DAM THE VTOLS !!

[leafer]

So was it a blast? No pun intended... :D

[deltatango]

There's a problem:

A common path, covered by an infantry squad in half an hour - 2 km.

for a tank platoon - 20km

for a fighter group - 400km

That is, for the aicraft pilots, the only place where some action takes place is immediate action theater - where the infantry and the armor battle at the moment. That is not an option because of the resulting "dead" rest of the world.

So, the only way to get a sensible interaction between different kinds of armed forces is MMO-type engine and/or an arcade-like gameplay for all of the levels. A best dream and a worst nightmare of a simmer ;)

 

But when you play ARMA online, you end up in just that situation. There are numerous ground battles going between players in FPS style. At the same time, other players are flying around in Helos or jets. The experience you get in helos in this situation (WRT draw distance and terrain) is at least as good - or better - than DCS:BS. The same could be said for arcade shooters like the battlefield series -albeit on a smaller map scale.

 

Granted, in a jet, its still too much of an ask to draw far enough ahead for the speed you are going and the ground you cover.

 

It's just that the helo systems and flight model are VERY simplified. So, if someone bothered to (and if it were possible to) improve the Helo systems and flight model in those other games, you could very well have such a world. That would be rather cool...

[Kuro6]

Yeah, I just tried ARMA 2. It sucked. Graphics are "ok", but their is no realism in the vehicles. The Ka-52 just has a big bullseye decaled over the hud. Flight model is arcade. Even the firearms kind of suck. Guess I'll keep on waiting...

 

I hope that after DCS has made a few good aircraft, they will think about sticking in realistic player controlled infantry and ground vehicles. Just make em as real as your aircraft. I think you guys could do so much better of a job than Arma or Codemasters. Your work on Black Shark speaks volumes.

 

@Wanderer - The rest of the area doesn't have to be dead. You could fill it with a.i. units that are supporting the player forces in the town or whatever. Just like it is now. I'm not saying that everyone has to be a human player, only that that would be the best play. Humans could be all in one area or attacking multiple targets in multiple areas. They could also be mixed in with some a.i. support, though I hate that. I prefer my unit all human. You would find it much harder attacking tricky monkey's armed with Iglas and ZSU's :p

Edited June 30, 2009 by Kuro6