The future I'd like to see....

[robmypro]

Hey guys, I am just getting into BS and LOMAC (long time Falcon fan) and I really like the unified battlefield with FC2 and BS. I think this is one big step in the direction I'd like to see military sims go. Ultimately, the battlefield needs to include a completely open architecture, including FPS, flight sims, tank sims, naval sims, etc. Let me explain.

 

There is tremendous overlap when it comes to developing simulations. Terrains must be created, including various objects such as buildings, airports, etc. For example, every team that develops a flight sim spends an incredible amount of time doing this stuff. Why not have a completely open architecture where several companies can focus on terrain exclusively, for a wide variety of locals, and then allow other sims to plug into them? This would be a much more efficient use of resources, and the terrain would be much improved as well.

 

But let's take it even further. Let's say I'm a helicopter fan, so I go get BS. But my buddy is a Falcon fan, so he jumps in the F-16. We should be able to fight on the same battlefield, even though our sims are made by different companies. But taking this further, my friends that love ARMA II and COD should be able to join the same campaign. Extend this to naval and tank sims as well. There is no way one company is going to pull something like this off, and to be really successful we need an industry movement towards this goal IMO.

 

What you'd have is something similar to what Windows did to the PC operating system prior to DOS. Instead of everyone coming up with unique user interfaces, control systems, terrains, campaign engines, etc. why not unify the whole thing? And make it highly modular so anyone with skills can add new content like we do now. I also think the building blocks of this architecture should be completely open source, so no one company takes it in a proprietary direction.

 

While I am really glad to see FC2 and BS share common terrain, and be able to engage on the same battlefield, ultimately we have a long way to go. I had originally thought about this around 10 years ago (when I got into Falcon), but I'm a bit disappointed we haven't come very far since then.

 

Any thoughts on why we have been so slow to move in this direction? I would think it would be good for game developers, since they don't have to shoulder the entire effort of putting together all the pieces. It has always been a win-win for developers and the community to me.

 

Rob

[evilnate]

Global terrain, see the gallery.

 

http://outerra.com/

[robmypro]

Global terrain, see the gallery.

 

http://outerra.com/

 

That is one step in the right direction. But is this an industry standard, open source solution?

[Feuerfalke]

Yes, yes, the good old Eierlegende Wollmilchsau. (Egg laying woolpigcow) :shifty:

[ZQuickSilverZ]

The problem with that is that different games require different amounts of detail. For instance a FPS needs to be VERY detailed. IF you tried to make a flight sim as detailed as a FPS then the game would chug so bad it would be unplayable. Yes I know you can fly in ArmA, but ArmA is not Blackshark. Also lets not forget the MASSIVE harddrive space it would take to hold everything. Also computer tech moves pretty fast. Play a game from 5 years ago, now 10 years ago, now come back to today. Notice a difference? With your proposal people would be locked into physics, graphical, sound, and code limitations since all code would have to be compatable. Then there is the problem of consistant quality and play balance among all players. Take BS for instance the controls are great. Now take a game with clunky controls and try to compete.

 

That said there is a new technology out there where you can play games through internet. For instance if a game comes out your pc could not possibly play it can link up through the net to another computer and have that computer play the game and send back the visual and sound data. Kind of like a streaming movie you can control. If they did something like that maybee where they could police everything then maybee your idea could work. That way the game would be on THIER hard drives and already kinda pre loaded. bla bla bla etc etc etc more bla bla bla ok I'm done.

[robmypro]

The problem with that is that different games require different amounts of detail. For instance a FPS needs to be VERY detailed. IF you tried to make a flight sim as detailed as a FPS then the game would chug so bad it would be unplayable. Yes I know you can fly in ArmA, but ArmA is not Blackshark. Also lets not forget the MASSIVE harddrive space it would take to hold everything. Also computer tech moves pretty fast. Play a game from 5 years ago, now 10 years ago, now come back to today. Notice a difference? With your proposal people would be locked into physics, graphical, sound, and code limitations since all code would have to be compatable. Then there is the problem of consistant quality and play balance among all players. Take BS for instance the controls are great. Now take a game with clunky controls and try to compete.

 

That said there is a new technology out there where you can play games through internet. For instance if a game comes out your pc could not possibly play it can link up through the net to another computer and have that computer play the game and send back the visual and sound data. Kind of like a streaming movie you can control. If they did something like that maybee where they could police everything then maybee your idea could work. That way the game would be on THIER hard drives and already kinda pre loaded. bla bla bla etc etc etc more bla bla bla ok I'm done.

 

Thanks for the reply, but I have to disagree with your conclusions.

 

1. Different Levels of Detail Problem

 

I agree that different type games require different levels of detail. But if I'm in a flight simulator I don't need to load all levels of detail. Likewise, the person running the FPS wouldn't need all levels of detail either. They wouldn't need the data that the flight sim user has, or even the naval sim user. It would be done in layers, so different classes of users wouldn't need to have all classes of detail. Only the one they are currently interacting with. But there would be a common communication layer so data that is relevant to your layer is transmitted from other layers. For instance, if I fly over a town in my F-16 i might see small arms fire if a team of people were fighting COD or ARMA style. But I wouldn't see the same level of detail.

 

2. Locked into physics, graphics, sound, etc.

 

How is this issue any different than Directx 9, 10.1, 11? Games are developed to support specific graphics specifications. New specifications come around that add enhancements, but provide backward compatibility. Taking that to this new architecture, improvements to sound, graphics, physics, etc, can be released. Maybe the sim you are using doesn't have the new bells and whistles, but maybe someone's new sim does. So nobody gets locked in, just like nobody using a Directx card is locked in or out of using Directx 11 games. You just have less eye candy, assuming the game was written to take advantage of it.

 

3. Consistent Quality and Balance

 

To some people, opening up FC 2 and BS already presents this problem. The way I envision it, you would have dedicated servers that could be configured to allow for the inclusion or exclusion of specific settings, add-ons, or entire sims. So you could host a server that allows BS and A-10, and Falcon, but does not allow FC 2, COD, etc. Again, I don't see any of these issues as show stoppers.

 

Regarding your last point about playing games through the internet, I will have to check that out. Sounds interesting.

Edited April 16, 2010 by robmypro

[EtherealN]

While I agree that you can run, for example, different graphics engines in the different components, there is still one very serious problem in the level of detail stuff: how do you explain to the foot-soldier that the rock or ditch he's trying to hide behind/in simply will not cover him since they're not rendered for that attack flight he's trying to hide from?

 

That said, there have been military grade simulators done where flight and "FPS" have been combined, but all I've seen on that front have either been derivatives of Operation Flashpoint/ArmA and therefore mainly an infantry sim (the aircraft were not really seen as part of the "simulation" since they did not have realistic operational characteristics), or very specialized mission rehearsal kit for special forces. This works fine for military needs because they're not meant to be "fun", they're meant to help your GI's, FACs and pilots understand the mission they are about to embark on.

[robmypro]

While I agree that you can run, for example, different graphics engines in the different components, there is still one very serious problem in the level of detail stuff: how do you explain to the foot-soldier that the rock or ditch he's trying to hide behind/in simply will not cover him since they're not rendered for that attack flight he's trying to hide from?

 

Let's think about that for a second. First, does it need to be rendered? For example, if I am at 2000 feet in my F-16 and I look down, exactly how detailed could that ditch be to me? I'm thinking not super detailed. But once I drop my payload, that bomb is going to hit somewhere, and when it does the blast radius, and kill zone are going to enter the detail level of the FPS player. So just like if any other bomb were dropped in their current environment, it will depend on a lot of factors if they die or not.

 

I guess I am saying that the fighter pilot wouldn't in real life have the same level of detail as the grunt on the ground, so why should our virtual environment be any different?

[theGozr]

Because in Real life while flying you are looking for the details !!

[EtherealN]

But once I drop my payload, that bomb is going to hit somewhere, and when it does the blast radius, and kill zone are going to enter the detail level of the FPS player.

 

Thing is, how are you to drop that bomb right if you can't see the guy? And how do you ensure that whether you can see the enemy positions mirror what's in the FPS?

 

We do see this problem in DCS - it is very difficult to use infantry in a realistic way, since they are too visible. In real life you will not find a trained infantry unit at several clicks because they'll know how to hide to make you not see them.

 

It's not a question of surviving a JDAM or not, it's a question of making sure the pilots don't see what the FPS people think the pilots shouldn't see...

[Booger]

Although the idea is wonderful for the player, I just don't see what would be so attractive on the business side. One company would have to head the whole thing & pretty much build the base for others to 'hook' in to.

 

To make a little return, that main company would charge other developers to use their "base"...which would be passed on to the consumer (equating to higher prices per aircraft/equipment).

 

Let's not mention the stupid competition that would be going on. There would be 12 different F-16s (11 of which would bitch about others copying their work). No one would agree on dividing up the airframes because they too are in the business of making money.

 

Seriously, the flight sim industry isn't the grand beast we all (I assume) wish it would be.

[Bushmanni]

Graphics engine problems are probably the least significant with this concept. OPF Dragon Rising in one that has an engine with very far visibility and still lots of detail for cannon fodder. And I think newer engines are already tackling this problem quite successfully.

 

Any project requires some kind of anchor to keep it together. Some fundamental concept or more commonly a person that guides the developers to produce something that fits together harmoniously in every way. Technical compatibility is only one problem. As an example, what would come if you combined BF2 and MW2 in one big multi-player game? I think this is the biggest problem with open source ultimate war-simulator. I don't say it's impossible, but it would require some very smart ideas on how to fit everything together. I don't have them, but maybe some else has?

[EtherealN]

OPF Dragon Rising has "far visibility" for a shooter, IMO, but I've not seen anything to indicate that it would be even near to capable of doing what's asked for here.

[ZQuickSilverZ]

robmypro "But once I drop my payload, that bomb is going to hit somewhere, and when it does the blast radius, and kill zone are going to enter the detail level of the FPS player"

 

Let me get this straight so that I know were on the same page. You want a jet to drop a bomb, then switch graphic engines on approach and impact, and adapt to the physics of the more detailed FPS engine, all in real time? Good luck. Im no programmer and maybee robmypro has more understanding of this than I do but, I just don't see how you could do that. I just dont understand how you could run 3 or 4 graphic engines (FPS, Ground Vehicles, Naval and Air were mentioned though im sure FPS and Ground Vehicles could share an engine) and expect them all to sink up in real time.

[dooom]

WWIIOL : BattlegroundEurope attempts this. the problem i have seen on that side of the devloper world is really two=fold.

 

1. graphics rationing. very few polygons available to keep the world adequaltely populated and integrated.

2. High demand for server-tracked objects. the bombs etc. are limited by the visual cone of those affected - ergo, unrealistically low he-111 drops - I can only imagine the difficulty to preserve both the beauty of a DCS title as well as the shared visual cone when dealing with the high speeds/altitudes of the modern jet age.

[robmypro]

robmypro "But once I drop my payload, that bomb is going to hit somewhere, and when it does the blast radius, and kill zone are going to enter the detail level of the FPS player"

 

Let me get this straight so that I know were on the same page. You want a jet to drop a bomb, then switch graphic engines on approach and impact, and adapt to the physics of the more detailed FPS engine, all in real time? Good luck. Im no programmer and maybee robmypro has more understanding of this than I do but, I just don't see how you could do that. I just dont understand how you could run 3 or 4 graphic engines (FPS, Ground Vehicles, Naval and Air were mentioned though im sure FPS and Ground Vehicles could share an engine) and expect them all to sink up in real time.

 

Let me be more clear, and yes, I am a programmer. Take ARMA II. Right now you have bombs that drop, and when they hit you get a blast radius and kills. This data comes from the internal game engine. The engine handles displaying the bomb, the blast, and determining the kill radius. What if this "data" wasn't originated from the ARMA II engine, but instead came from an external source. The external source could pass along info that told it a bomb was dropped, in which direction, and then that bomb becomes part of the ARMA II engine. So the plane that drops it sends data telling it I've dropped a bomb, it's this type of bomb, and here are the coordinates. The pilot sees the blast from the air and the graphic engine of that sim shows the effects of it. Is that much different from the multiplayer games we have now where all players see the same explosions?

 

 

Once you start sharing the data between sims, the each sim can render it using their native engine. Again, I think this is totally logical, and possible.

[robmypro]

WWIIOL : BattlegroundEurope attempts this.

 

I played it. The problem with all these attempts is the vehicles or nowhere near sim grade. And I do not think one company could do it. It would take an industry movement.

[Panzertard]

Yes, yes, the good old Eierlegende Wollmilchsau. (Egg laying woolpigcow) :shifty:

Sorry to be unconstructive for once, but as for the scope of whats possible for ED developers (time, as well as resources) - this would be the woolpigcow everyone would like to dream of - but can never be realized.

- it's most likely it's going to stay like that with the current market that is available for woolpigcows.

 

 

But still nice to dream though. ;)

[robmypro]

Sorry to be unconstructive for once, but as for the scope of whats possible for ED developers (time, as well as resources) - this would be the woolpigcow everyone would like to dream of - but can never be realized.

- it's most likely it's going to stay like that with the current market that is available for woolpigcows.

 

 

But still nice to dream though. ;)

 

I hope you are wrong, but I guess we'll see in 5 or 10 years the direction the industry is taking.

[Panzertard]

I hope you are wrong, but I guess we'll see in 5 or 10 years the direction the industry is taking.

I hope I'm wrong too :)

But as you say - if the military and gaming industry gets a good marriage somewhere, we might see it. But I doubt it's going to be the civilian market that initiates such a wonderful combination.

 

I'm not sure if you remember EF2000. Digital Integration Dynamics or something - had the same vision. To create a virtual battlefield. Since then there's been several others.

Still we haven't seen such an integration yet because it tends to get very complex to integrate a fair modelling for all the professions (air, sea, ground, infantry etc).

 

I'll still keep on dreaming though. :)

[robmypro]

Yeah, I remember it but I never bought it. I think the problem with all the attempts is they are driven by one company, and a project like this is too large for one alone. I'd love to see an effort where existing sims are integrated. Let's not build a new sim for flight, FPS, etc. Let's integrate the ones we already have.

 

Still dreaming....

 

Thanks buddy. Hope to see you online.

[Feuerfalke]

The funny thing is, the same discussion is going on on all simulation forums from time to time.

 

And on the IL2 Banana-forums a guy recently summed up the same idea into just a few needed facts: He asked for a simulation with unlimited level of detail, unlimited realism, unlimited number of vehicles and aircraft and an unlimited world.

 

I answered him, that this wouldn't be a problem:

 

You just need an unlimited amount of refunds, an unlimited development time and unlimited PC power.

 

Pitty nothing in the real world is unlimited, so you have to make compromises.

 

As I posted before: there is no such thing as an Eierlegende Wollmilchsau, sorry.

 

Still a nice dream, no doubt.

 

Maybe someday all software-developers will unite, because they realize what huge marketing success such a simulation would be.

Chances are, though, they'd produce Sim4 together, as you can make more money from it. :(

[Panzertard]

Hehe, indeed - nice answer for the IL-2, Feuerfalke. :D

You too Rob, it's always nice to exchange ideas ~S ;)

[evilnate]

IMO the examples of the outerra project might prove that a single dev (only 2 programmers) is capable of delivering the elusive "Eierlegende Wollmilchsau".

 

I doubt a joint venture, but I think a single dev team could make this dream CFS. ArmA 2 is a infantry simulator with the ability to interact with everything. DCS could be the flight simulator that allowed the ability to interact/play_as with everything.

[EtherealN]

Evilnate, I think you are massively overestimating what outerra is...