Suggestion per ASC Interview Request

[Devil 505]

During the interview with Enigma, Matt had asked towards the end of the video for suggestions or additions we would like to see or maybe they missed.  This video covers those suggestions from myself.  Time stamps included.  The 3 suggestions have some real-world video I was able to locate while I narrated. 

 

[Devil 505]

@baltic_dragon Baltic, I heard you were going to be interviewing Matt with ASC about the C-130.  You think you could watch my video above and throw a few questions in there for me.  Be curious to see what he says. Specifically, the Maritime insertions and the JTAC/Halo first person stuff. I would greatly appreciate it.  I feel like there is some real untapped potential with the C-130 that they could bring to DCS.  

[Yurgon]

Can't speak for BD, but could you condense that into a few written questions? Your video looked quite interesting to me, but I wasn't ready to invest 35 minutes to watch all of it.

[Devil 505]

3 hours ago, Yurgon said:

Can't speak for BD, but could you condense that into a few written questions? Your video looked quite interesting to me, but I wasn't ready to invest 35 minutes to watch all of it

Absolutely.  3 main suggestions below.  In the video, I time stamped (1st, 2nd, 3rd suggestion).  I inserted real world footage of the below suggestions if you need examples (not my personal videos). 

• Have you looked into maritime insertions with RHIBs (Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats) or Zodiacs.  Would you be interested in it?
• Would you be willing to look into rolling insertions and extractions in the Desert with wheeled units such as Hummers, ATV's Ect? This was used in Afghanistan and Iraq with Special Operations and would be a first in DCS and 100% applicable to the maps we have.  The C-130 will play a pivotable role in DCS Afghanistan and Iraq.
• You are the first to create the first person walk around experience in DCS.  The C-130 was essential in all SOCOM insertions (HALO/HAHO) into Afghanistan and Iraq. Would you be willing to be the first dev to invest time in making a small JTAC/CCT team, AI or Playable for utilization in DCS.  These units could be deployed to lase for other aircraft and then extracted by players using a number of helo modules. 

If first person has been implemented successfully with the C-130 (looked awesome in the trailer), I feel this presents another opportunity to capitalize on an untapped area in DCS.  A small JTAC or CCT team would be a solid first intro for expanding ground operation but not going full shooter.  It would allow coordination with other aircraft and be a solid addition to C-130 creating the most realistic simulation of Halo or HAHO jumps.  I can only imagine the Hype of us VR players walking to the ramp with each other at 22K and having a player load master give the signal to jump.  The C-130 has a real opportunity to make that special in my opinion based on what I have seen thus far.  There are plenty of Vets out there that would probably be more than willing to help you get it right.     

[MAXsenna]

Great suggestions @Devil 505, though I'd assume ED would want to integrate something like FPS into CA. 

Cheers! 

[Devil 505]

3 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Great suggestions @Devil 505, though I'd assume ED would want to integrate something like FPS into CA. 

Appreciate it my friend! I can get off in the weeds on a great way to incorporate FPS stuff, but I think the logical transition would be something like JTAC or CCT's to start.  Plenty of use designating for our current modules, can work on incorporating the foundations needed for possible FPS in the future, and gives the C-130 crew the ability to incorporate something spectacular in VR that has never been done, HALO/HAHO jumps.  I think this would be killer to start with.

C-130 and JTAC coordinate an insertion mission with air units. JTAC/CCT jump in and get on station and start a nine line when ready with whoever is inbound.  Once the target(s) are eliminated, get to the extract point for pick up.  This could in turn provide yet another opportunity for the CH-47 or even the Huey with ED's assistance to pick up for extract.  There is a lot of good material out there on the equipment they use and I am sure a lot of subject matter experts that would be willing to assist with the authenticity of its implementation.   

[Silver_Dragon]

19 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

• You are the first to create the first person walk around experience in DCS.  The C-130 was essential in all SOCOM insertions (HALO/HAHO) into Afghanistan and Iraq. Would you be willing to be the first dev to invest time in making a small JTAC/CCT team, AI or Playable for utilization in DCS.  These units could be deployed to lase for other aircraft and then extracted by players using a number of helo modules. 

Where? I dont see nothing about a FPS on ASC C-130 video. And no, the "ramp walk" has none about a FPS.

Edited August 7 by Silver_Dragon

[Devil 505]

9 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Where? I dont see nothing about a FPS on ASC C-130 video.

It was in the release trailer at 0:42 seconds 

Confirmed in the prelease notes on ED's website

null

And ASC just confirmed on their discord under the C-130J videos and suggestions that the load master can walk outside of the aircraft all the way to the wing tip and around the entire plane.  

[Silver_Dragon]

Just because ASC was able to build a Load Master doesn't make it an FPS, and to do that, ED would have had to make changes to the core, because as far as we know, a third party doesn't have access to that type of code. Also, we're only seeing a camera, not a body, and if I recall correctly, the closest thing to that same vision is that of a downed pilot parachuting out, who can do exactly the same thing when he hits the ground, moving around objects, and I think that's the functionality ASC is leveraging (unless ED says otherwise).

You're asking for functionality (HALO/HAHO), which has to be done by ED first in the core because it's not implemented, and things like JTAC, which would affect CA's stuff. I think we're talking about different things.

[Devil 505]

3 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Just because ASC was able to build a Load Master doesn't make it an FPS, and to do that, ED would have had to make changes to the core, because as far as we know, a third party doesn't have access to that type of code. Also, we're only seeing a camera, not a body, and if I recall correctly, the closest thing to that same vision is that of a downed pilot parachuting out, who can do exactly the same thing when he hits the ground, moving around objects, and I think that's the functionality ASC is leveraging (unless ED says otherwise).

You're asking for functionality (HALO/HAHO), which has to be done by ED first in the core because it's not implemented, and things like JTAC, which would affect CA's stuff. I think we're talking about different things.

You know what I think is really frustrating about the forums and making videos is, as passionate as this community is about this sim, as soon as they see something they disagree with, they cherry pick the sh*t out of your comment or video without reading or listening to the entire thing.  

1. I did not ask for an FPS (First person shooter) nor did I state or insinuate the loadmaster was an FPS. I suggested creating a JTAC role for designating targets would be a great option, since we already have an AI version in game now. It is not a stretch to ask if a third party can make a first-person JTAC experience before ED makes their own.  ED is CLEARLY selling this product and labeling it as first-person capable loadmaster role and a first for DCS.
2. You say, "as far as we know, a third party doesn't have access to that type of code ect...." yet you have not listened to the interview from ASC with Enigma.  They discuss this and how ED gave them the ability to create the cargo system, a new logistics system to include loading and unloading individual crates and their contents within those crates, the first-person experience and several other firsts for DCS and why.  They explain how ED did not have the bandwidth to make these things for them because of the ongoing work with Eagle. F-35, and all the other stuff they have in work.  If ASC wanted all the aforementioned in the C-130J, they must develop it themselves and have ED approve it. ASC went onto say they were happy ED released the new cargo management system at the bases with the release of the Chinook because had they not done that; ASC would have had to create/develop it for the C-130J. Sounds to me like ED is absolutely letting third parties assist with core development.
3. If all we are getting is a floating camera we move around in the plane and NOT a true first-person experience, I would be very disappointed with ED their PR for this module to say the least.  That would be extremely misleading as you stated above.  I have asked ASC to clarify on their discord.  The only concrete thing I can confirm is we can only walk as far as the wing tip, which tells me the loadmaster is definitely attached in some form or fashion to the aircraft.  ASC stated this on discord.
4. And last but not least, I am asking for functionality that ED could absolutely approve a third party to do and to a degree, sounds like what they have already done with the C-130J per the developers own words.  You name me one person who would not take a functional JTAC team they could use and control in game in first person over anything in Combined Arms right now.  Don't get me wrong, I would love to see CA as it should be, but ED has made it clear that ground stuff is on the back burner for a long time.  You don't win war by fighting it by yourself.  Clearly these devs are talented and have the ability to create "firsts" for DCS, so not really huge ask to see if they were interested in tackling another first for DCS.

All I ask SD is you actually read the entire posts or listen to the entire video before commenting.  If I am to long winded in my videos (I talk a lot), sweet, watch it in doses or ask me where I got the information before making assumptions.  Your first post to me was LITERALLY posted in 4 other places outside my posts and video.  It was talked about in the interview with ASC, multiple answers have been posted on their discord, ED posted it on the early release video, and it was listed in the pre-release notes when you purchase the aircraft. 

It's not productive to start a debate before you have all the facts.  All I have stated above about the C-130J module is FACT per ED and the Developers own words and press release, minus the additions I was suggesting in my previous posts and my video.  I would like to add that the main reason I made this video, was because in the interview ASC owner asked the community for further suggestions in case they may have missed something or could possibly incorporate features further down the line. 

4 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Where? I dont see nothing about a FPS on ASC C-130 video. And no, the "ramp walk" has none about a FPS.

 

[Silver_Dragon]

7 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

You say, "as far as we know, a third party doesn't have access to that type of code ect...." yet you have not listened to the interview from ASC with Enigma.  They discuss this and how ED gave them the ability to create the cargo system, a new logistics system to include loading and unloading individual crates and their contents within those crates, the first-person experience and several other firsts for DCS and why.  They explain how ED did not have the bandwidth to make these things for them because of the ongoing work with Eagle. F-35, and all the other stuff they have in work.  If ASC wanted all the aforementioned in the C-130J, they must develop it themselves and have ED approve it. ASC went onto say they were happy ED released the new cargo management system at the bases with the release of the Chinook because had they not done that; ASC would have had to create/develop it for the C-130J. Sounds to me like ED is absolutely letting third parties assist with core development.

There you have the answer.... I haven't listened to the Enigma interview, because in the past that man attacked ED and said things that he should have thought a little before saying them... That's why, as they say in my country "it's not my thing". I smell that you yourself have answered the second question... there was already some work done on the core by ED on the loadmaster, ASC has improved it a lot.

Quote

If all we are getting is a floating camera we move around in the plane and NOT a true first-person experience, I would be very disappointed with ED their PR for this module to say the least.  That would be extremely misleading as you stated above.  I have asked ASC to clarify on their discord.  The only concrete thing I can confirm is we can only walk as far as the wing tip, which tells me the loadmaster is definitely attached in some form or fashion to the aircraft.  ASC stated this on discord.

Very bad business... if, as you say, it's "connected" to the plane, I'm afraid it's simply a camera, not an independent entity. Remember, currently, a downed pilot is an independent entity and has no limitations on where he can go or move. And I'm suspecting what it might be, a derivative of the orbital external camera.

Quote

I did not ask for an FPS (First person shooter) nor did I state or insinuate the loadmaster was an FPS. I suggested creating a JTAC role for designating targets would be a great option, since we already have an AI version in game now. It is not a stretch to ask if a third party can make a first-person JTAC experience before ED makes their own.  ED is CLEARLY selling this product and labeling it as first-person capable loadmaster role and a first for DCS.

The easy way, in AI, is for ED to create an infantry-type entity and give it that "role", and as far as we know, these are currently properties assigned to certain vehicles and I'm not sure if that feature can be added by a 3rd party, because due to mods, I don't think it can be done either.

Quote

And last but not least, I am asking for functionality that ED could absolutely approve a third party to do and to a degree, sounds like what they have already done with the C-130J per the developers own words.  You name me one person who would not take a functional JTAC team they could use and control in game in first person over anything in Combined Arms right now.  Don't get me wrong, I would love to see CA as it should be, but ED has made it clear that ground stuff is on the back burner for a long time.  You don't win war by fighting it by yourself.  Clearly these devs are talented and have the ability to create "firsts" for DCS, so not really huge ask to see if they were interested in tackling another first for DCS.

In itself, it shouldn't just be an FPS, it should be an improved version of what we currently have from Combined Arms' JTAC functionality. If the code for a JTAC isn't locked by contract (remember that CA was based on a military contract for the creation of a JTAC trainer for the UK Army), ASC could very possibly improve it, and I'd bet my life if they could do that. The problem remains the same; I'm afraid there's some "building block" missing that ED has to implement first, because like it or not, I'm willing to bet that no 3rd party has access to the main core; ED simply creates the minimum step for them to be able to create (even if it's just declaring a function or procedure). That's something I've always required from ED with Vehicles and Ships, the ability to add "cockpits" and make them controllable in first person to make even a mod (we've been waiting 17 years).

Edited August 8 by Silver_Dragon

[Devil 505]

3 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

because in the past that man attacked ED and said things that he should have thought a little before saying them...

Objectively, I do not disagree with anything you said.  Fare enough.  But clarification, are you saying Enigma has said some things in the past or Matt from ASC? 

 

[Silver_Dragon]

7 minutes ago, Devil 505 said:

Objetivamente, no estoy en desacuerdo con nada de lo que dijiste. Basta. Pero, para aclarar, ¿dices que Enigma ha dicho algunas cosas en el pasado o Matt de ASC? 

 

My problem is with Enigma, with their content creation and their past "opinions," which is why I haven't watched their video. And no, I don't have any problem with ASC; on the contrary, I'm grateful for the great work they're doing.

Edited August 8 by Silver_Dragon

[MAXsenna]

10 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

You know what I think is really frustrating about the forums and making videos is, as passionate as this community is about this sim, as soon as they see something they disagree with, they cherry pick the sh*t out of your comment or video without reading or listening to the entire thing.  

There are two people on this forum that will jump at the chance to shoot down wished. One, because he just doesn't like the idea, for whatever reason, no matter what it is. The other one: "ED has not talked about it. It's not in the roadmap". Go figure! (The thing about reading is spot on).

What's actually funny is that more often than not get it wrong, and we suddenly have said feature!  

10 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

I did not ask for an FPS (First person shooter) nor did I state or insinuate the loadmaster was an FPS

Apologies! This is my fault. I mentioned "FPS" for a lack off a better description because I was in a hurry and English is not my first language. What I meant to say, was that any feature that could resemble/compete with a Combined Arms feature would probably need to be approved by ED, which you obviously agree with.  

10 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

  If ASC wanted all the aforementioned in the C-130J, they must develop it themselves and have ED approve it.

Thank you for your video, thoughts and what you bring to the community!  

Cheers! Have a great weekend everyone!  

Edited August 8 by MAXsenna

[Silver_Dragon]

22 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

There are two people on this forum that will jump at the chance to shoot down wished. One, because he just doesn't like the idea, for whatever reason, no matter what it is. The other one: "ED has not talked about it. It's not in the roadmap". Go figure! (The thing about reading is spot on).

MAXsenna, look, I'm not here to beat people up and dash their expectations. What I'm here to say is that many people need to realize that for 17 years there have been "plans" (not promises) for certain features/capabilities/environments... and we've all blown them out of proportion and created our own "pipelines" (and I was one of the first, just like David 550). And when a launch happened, reality hit us like a punch in the stomach, and then the torches and pitchforks started (example: WW2). That's why I've long since made a 180-degree turn and become coldly realistic... because I prefer them to take one or two steps than for them to run and end up slipping and falling to the ground... you have to crawl before you walk, and walk before you run.

And I think I'm repeating myself when I say this... I know I'm coming on like a steamroller, and that's perhaps my biggest mistake, but it's because I've lowered my bar for what can be exaggerated to almost the bare minimum.

[MAXsenna]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

MAXsenna, look, I'm not here to beat people up and dash their expectations. What I'm here to say is that many people need to realize that for 17 years there have been "plans" (not promises) for certain features/capabilities/environments... and we've all blown them out of proportion and created our own "pipelines" (and I was one of the first, just like David 550).

Okay, that's fine! I see your point.

However! I do not personally believe the wishlist/wishlists are not the place for it. Let people wish for whatever, (We all remembers Mike's dailies ), sometimes it evolves into a fruitful discussion about it of what can be done and what can't. If you don't like it, rate it a single star, (this goes for all discussions). The first page of the wishlist pretty much tells users ED's look on it.

If you see a wish that's been wished for many times, just kindly inform the user that, in fact you're not the first. There's a search function, and pretty much they'll understand it might be just a wish. Of course, sometimes it becomes popcorn hour, (Easy/Auto AAR anyone?). 

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

and then the torches and pitchforks started (example: WW2)

I wasn't around at the time, and to me it's not important. I know it is to you, and it seems very personal, and you seem to be really offended. Please don't take this the wrong way. It might be for you, while you often come off as wanting to pick a fight! You do not deserve that! Honestly! 

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

That's why I've long since made a 180-degree turn and become coldly realistic... because I prefer them to take one or two steps than for them to run and end up slipping and falling to the ground... you have to crawl before you walk, and walk before you run.

You seriously still believe that after 17 years on the forum? Respect!  

This forum consists of hardheaded people not looking for advice you know?  

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

. I know I'm coming on like a steamroller, and that's perhaps my biggest mistake, but it's because I've lowered my bar for what can be exaggerated to almost the bare minimum.

Yeah, you actually do! And I'm very happy to hear that self consciousness is not lost on you! 

Take care, enjoy your weekend! Apologies for often giving you a hard time. I have nothing personally against you! Thank you for the Roadmap, I check it every day, wish there was more posts!

[Devil 505]

7 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Apologies! This is my fault.

All good brother. No offense taken at all!!!!

7 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

I'm not here to beat people up and dash their expectations. What I'm here to say is that many people need to realize that for 17 years there have been "plans" (not promises) for certain features/capabilities/environments... and we've all blown them out of proportion and created our own "pipelines" (and I was one of the first, just like David 550). And when a launch happened, reality hit us like a punch in the stomach, and then the torches and pitchforks started (example: WW2).

I don't think you are tracking here Sierra Delta.  ASC asked the community for suggestions.  My comments were not unsolicited suggestions or a forced wish list of expectations.  I respect your reasons not to listen to Enigmas interview, but ASC made the call to interview with him and ASC requested feedback from the community so that is what I provided.  The comment above is a bit unjustified when a 3rd party dev is asking for that exact information.

 

7 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

That's why I've long since made a 180-degree turn and become coldly realistic... because I prefer them to take one or two steps than for them to run and end up slipping and falling to the ground... you have to crawl before you walk, and walk before you run.

You said it yourself, 17 years of tracking ED's roadmaps and setting expectations, and I have been there for all 17.  I have seen all the promises from the kick starter WW2 inheritance changing over time to many others.  I am not knocking ED or their crew at all, but 17 years is a long time to learn to walk.  We have come leaps and bounds from where it all started and I am no knocking ANY of the progress that has been made, I am simply stating if we wait for ED to do it all, it will be another 17 years. 

My suggestion to allow ASC to help develop some of the core simulation in DCS is not unrealistic.  I can tell you from experience in the industry, all major government contractors that develop these aircraft in real life, are not the sole developers or proprietary owners of every system or software in those aircraft.  There are many hands that own proprietary information to each platform.  Those major contractors that build these aircraft require the assistance and contribution of those sub tiers, or we do not continue to develop the most lethal platforms in aviation history.  

I think ED could inherit the same concept.  It would require the correct contractual language to allow it to happen, but it is nothing new that does not happen daily in the defense industry.  Again, look at what is in the pipeline currently from ED and what they are still working on finishing alongside developing the F-15C and F-35A.  We have been crawling for a long time, and I would say we have already started walking.  I feel it's time to pick up the pace with additions to DCS that fill in some of these voids with empty maps and no period specific units to populate said environments.  I won't go off in the weeds on this subject, but I feel myself and the community have a right to suggest these options to a third-party dev if in your words, ED is still learning how to crawl and walk.