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

[GGTharos]

Yep, just keep piling thing on until you're running on the same engine :)

 

BS and FC2 have the same underlying engine; it is their product, both products have the same netcode, physics, etc etc - it makes things easier, though I think the dev time on FC2 should also indicate that it isn't just plain simple. It is definitely NOT a metric nor example of integrating different sims together. Put different companies trying to integrate, and see what mess you end up with. This is the real world.

 

Mind you, don't confuse lack of desire for wanting this to happen with me pointing out the impracticality of it.

[jctrnacty]

Well, everything is possible but its a question of time, money and resources.

 

Now in ARMA 2 you have land air sea units together on limited space with a simplified modeling of control systems. Maybe later in time BIS will improve the abilities of their engine and improve all these aspects the ARMA 2 is missing.

 

In operation arrowhead they plan to simulate countermeasure system and radar systems, FLIR and other things. you can watch it in this video.

 

[EtherealN]

Again, BS and FC2 prove integration is not only possible, but reality. How did the team do it? Smoke and mirrors? Data integration, plain and simple. Just ask them.

 

Excuse me, but GG didn't just "ask them" - he was and is part of the process of doing Q/A on it.

 

As for how they did it?

They ported the LO:FC1 aircraft FM's to the latest version of TFCSE, which also happens to be used in DCS:BS. So "how they did it" is simply that they made both products use the same code - almost exactly. ;) (That is of course a simplification, but you know what I mean I hope.)

 

There's still some patch-work that needs to be done due to things that have changed, and DCS:BS wants the new sound engine that was developed for FC2. But the fact that there are issues to be overcome even when the two "pieces" use the same version of the same underlying simulation engine, same graphics engine, same network engine, same everything except sound...

 

FC2 and DCS:BS being multiplayer-compatible is not in any way an example of how to integrate a flight sim with a platoon-level combat simulator, in the same way that making one Quake3-based game compatible online with another Quake3-based game isn't.

[Feuerfalke]

Our unified battlefield is based on real-world physics. It's reality based. So any missile launched by any other participant is going to have to comply with real-world parameters. It's part of the specification. We're not building an arcade world, are we? And in this world reality is reality, and one participant isn't going to be able to bend it.

 

IMHO this is where the basic misconception is.

 

In order to share "simple data", as it was put before, you really have to make a single engine that uses "real-world-physics" to be able to simulate all aspects of the world, share and interpret all information.

 

Simple, isn't it? But what formula do you use to simulate real-world-physics?

 

Sorry to be blunt, but there is no such simple formula. You have to simulate each single aspect of each single branch of the game and bring that together into one unified engine. So this engine has to cover it all, from how to treat wounds to how to burn through ECM, from moving grass when soldiers pass through it, to atmospheric turbulences, from a handheld compass to radio-navigation, from a lost tank-track to the hydraulics failure on the airplane.

 

Wow, that's gotta be one heck of a simulation.

 

 

On a personal sidenote: Wouldn't such a simulator be the non-plus-ultra for the military? They have the money, they have the need, why do you think it is still impossible for them to create something similar that worth the description "simulation"?

[robmypro]

First, thanks for sharing some insight into what the team did to integrate the two projects. Of course, it is never easy to do this, and I agree this isn't an ideal example. Also interesting to know that FC2 has the better sound engine.

 

One thing I'd like to mention is the people that are claiming this is hard to impossible are looking at the project from their own unique reality. Of course, based on how things are structured today it would be challenging, but moving forward I'll bet if you asked the developers how they would do something like I am proposing, they would come up with ideas. The issue is, the existing code was not written with this structure in mind. Of course it would be harder than if you planned it that way from the beginning. That doesn't mean it's impossible to integrate, but it would definitely be a lot easier had that been planned from the beginning. But that applies to anything in software.

 

The reason I mention this here is that I think the guys that are developing BS and FC2 are probably the best team to try something like this. It also gives them a dominate position, because the company that brings this to market is going to own the segment for 20 years. Why not these guys? BS seems like the perfect platform to start with.

 

As far as GG goes, I read his title and I understand his connection with the project. I'm not sure if he is doing solely black box testing, or if he has knowledge, access and understanding of the internal code, and how it's structured. That would make a huge difference. Again, I know you guys are far more intimate with this project, but I just don't think it is impossible to accomplish. Hard? Yes. Impossible? No. Worth it? Absolutely.

 

I'd love to talk to the lead developer on either of these projects to see what they think of the idea. As many people have mentioned, it would take resources, time and a lot of coordination among participants, and that would be the biggest hurdle IMO. The technical challenges could be overcome. But if you started with..."we are doing this...how do we make it happen?" I guarantee you the smart guys in the room will come up with the solutions. I'd bet several of them probably already have the nuts and bolts conceptually worked out.

 

Once again, thanks guys for chiming in on this. Always good to hear opposing views. Maybe one day soon this will be attempted, and then we can all see the merits (or lack thereof) of such an idea. I hope to one day see it!

[robmypro]

IMHO this is where the basic misconception is. In order to share "simple data", as it was put before, you really have to make a single engine that uses "real-world-physics" to be able to simulate all aspects of the world, share and interpret all information. Simple, isn't it? But what formula do you use to simulate real-world-physics?

 

I agree you'd ideally want to have a common physics engine that is shared between sims. But when I mentioned standards and specifications, this is partially what I was referring to. But BS and LOMAC already have that, right? They have a specification that all vehicles, weapon systems, etc. exist within.

 

One thing that I think is being lost here, is once you've developed the unified engine you are left with individual elements that work within it. So the team that is developing the next F-16 isn't worrying about physics, because it's already defined and coded. They worry about accurately modeling the F-16 within that environment. And since the terrains, GUI, data communication, etc. are already modeled and exist, they don't have to worry about it.

 

I guess we can agree to disagree, and I respect the nay's take on this. But I think you'll be surprised one day when it happens. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[GGTharos]

I know enough; I also work in software in RL, and while I don't do project management personally, I'm reasonably close to it.

 

You're thinking of software only, and ignoring the people and legal side, as well as the 'we have other things to do' side.

What you are proposing is simply not compatible with the reality of software development right now.

 

As far as GG goes, I read his title and I understand his connection with the project. I'm not sure if he is doing solely black box testing, or if he has knowledge, access and understanding of the internal code, and how it's structured. That would make a huge difference. Again, I know you guys are far more intimate with this project, but I just don't think it is impossible to accomplish. Hard? Yes. Impossible? No. Worth it? Absolutely.

 

He would tell you, 'Nice idea, but we have things to do'. It's been asked before ;)

 

I'd love to talk to the lead developer on either of these projects to see what they think of the idea.

[robmypro]

Fair enough GG. Thanks for sharing your views on the topic. We'll respectfully disagree and see where the industry takes us. At this point clearly you are right, but that doesn't mean things won't change and come around to my way of thinking. In the meantime I'll buy and support the products you guys are making. BTW, I've just cracked the seal on BS, and it is full on.

 

There goes another 2 years of my life. :-)

 

Rob

[Feuerfalke]

But when I mentioned standards and specifications, this is partially what I was referring to. But BS and LOMAC already have that, right? They have a specification that all vehicles, weapon systems, etc. exist within.

 

No it hasn't. It has tanks moving on the ground, even soldiers running around, but that doesn't make it an infantry simulation. Hell, it even hasn't collideable vegetation :D

[GGTharos]

Given your fourth sentence, I don't think we disagree, nor do I think your ideas are wrong - just something that has been and still is impractical for a consumer product, for the time being :)

 

Enjoy the Shark :)

[EtherealN]

Hell, it even hasn't collideable vegetation :D

 

Oh dammit, now we'll soon have a thread about that again...

Might as well go RWR as well! :D

[Feuerfalke]

:music_whistling:

 

:D

[ZQuickSilverZ]

If this could work it would have to be a pay per month set up to keep funding coming in for development and the server and bandwidth that would be needed for such a large amount of people. They could maybee release a vehicle every month or two. It would have to all be older stuff like 60's-80's stuff. Which people say whaaaa 60's but keep in mind that alot of military vehicles have long lives of service. They could charge say $15 a month server dues and that would give access to all vehicles. Also you would have to have a bunch of AI in the map to make up for deficiencies of certain roles or perhaps an RTS element for a commander to cut down on CPU AI workload. I mean if your the only one driving a tank on the map and 25 people are in an aircraft (an extreme example) that wouldnt be very fun for the tank driver would it? He would need AI controlled tanks to assist and to shoot at. Perhaps one team could be human players and one team could be AI or AI RTS commanded. I could maybee see ground and air but not really naval or FPS. Does controlling a ship out in the ocean or a submarine under the ocean sound fun to anyone? It seems kind of limiting to me. Plus I am sure those ships could not really be realisticly simulated because it takes so many people to run them and those things are so classified anyway, esp the submarines. Its one thing to simulate a 2 or 3 person vehicle with a couple of your buddies. It's a whole other thing to find 15 people to run a ship.

Edited June 13, 2011 by ZQuickSilverZ

[ShadowVonChadwick]

Fair enough GG. Thanks for sharing your views on the topic. We'll respectfully disagree and see where the industry takes us. At this point clearly you are right, but that doesn't mean things won't change and come around to my way of thinking. In the meantime I'll buy and support the products you guys are making. BTW, I've just cracked the seal on BS, and it is full on.

 

There goes another 2 years of my life. :-)

 

Rob

 

Hell yeh ,,this could end up like the "Sims franchise" but maybe called "War Sims" .....back to being a reality consuming pastime. I'm ready !!

 

"The Sims 3 proved to be an instant success, selling 1.4 million copies in its first week and dominating the sales charts over a month later."

 

Im still with you on this one.

Edited April 18, 2010 by ShadowVonChadwick

[Paco]

Interesting

 

Very, very interesting thread. I work somewhat closely with military sims and this concept of a scalable battlefield has sparked much interest in the military side of the house. In my area, we are looking at the pilot/JTAC training aspect where there is a unique need for the pilot and JTAC to see exactly the same thing. Hence the need for a common image generator capable of scalable graphics as one zooms down to the FPS details.

A few thoughts:

It's not impossible.....hard, yes, but scalable graphic details (from FPS to pilot style visibility) is possible in the same IG, I've seen it. In fact I have it in my squadron (real life squadron). We have a complete village replicated from an actual one with ARMA level of detail. I can then zoom out too a pilot's view overhead 20-30 thousand feet, miles away and fly around this region of the earth with photorealistic scenery. Very impressive. Right now only one village exists but it just takes time to make more. The magic is that I can at one moment be in FPS mode, up close and personal looking at blades of grass sway in the breeze, detach from that entity, zoom out and fly around at airliner alitude in the bozosphere with a pilot's viewpoint.

Those you familiar with Falcon and ARMA know that we get one perspective or the other, not both. In ARMA you go higher than 5000' and further than say 10km laterally an stuff drops off, ARMA II is even worse. No good for a JTAC trainer when we have targeting pods that see things from much farther. Conversely in Falcon 4.0 AF, we have excellent pilot view disances but FPS graphics...not so much.

Long story short there is potential in this area, just need the some one or some organization to fund it. There is a military market but the right folks need to be heard and given purchasing power. 5-10 years from now we may see the combined sim. Exciting stuff on the horizon. The sims we have now dedicated and accredited for JTAC training...suck. Especially when compared with what's on the civilian market.

Second point. Be careful what you wish for. Is there a gaming market for such a sim? Don't know. Cominbed Arms is a complicated, boring, mundane practice which wouldn't be fun to the average gamer. As I type this, I'm in a hotel room where I just spent the weekend with an Army Brigade Fires staff practicing/planning in the area of joint fires. Tomorrow I travel to Ft Leavenworth to do a week of the same thing. If this sounds like fun, it's not. When I game, I want to blow stuff up. I don't want to come up with plans to combine the effects of all these fires. Who wants to sit and play howitzer dude. Not me. Who wants to do a CAS battle drill in the TOC and see how fast you can clear fires to enable a stirke on a town...boorrrringg.

Anyway, I digress. Neat things on the horizon. Tired going to bed.

 

Paco

[JimMack]

Very, very interesting thread. I work somewhat closely with military sims and this concept of a scalable battlefield has sparked much interest in the military side of the house. In my area, we are looking at the pilot/JTAC training aspect where there is a unique need for the pilot and JTAC to see exactly the same thing. Hence the need for a common image generator capable of scalable graphics as one zooms down to the FPS details.

 

Paco

 

I agree that our current ground graphics are not up to ARMA2, but both JTAC and pilot see the same things, and pilots can see at long range, not 10k.

See http://www.thebattlesim.com/index.php?end_pos=9&scr=list&lang=en

We now also have a "Joint Fires" module that adds artillery.

Edited April 19, 2010 by JimMack

[SUBS17]

I'd like to see separate freqs for each tower and AWACs etc and NAV charts with beacons like on FSX. Also In Game Voice coms that uses freqs/channels or HAVQUICK type coms like in OF and MLU manuals.

[robmypro]

Thanks for the inside take on this Paco. Good stuff. Regarding being careful what we wish for, I don't think fun has to be compromised to achieve a united battlefield.

 

For example, if I am a BS pilot, when I join a server the current campaign may call for BS pilots to take out the tank columns in support of our ground troops that are trying to take a key city. If I am in a FPS my objective is to take this town, and hold it. If I'm a LOMAC pilot maybe my orders are air superiority, or to take out a bridge that the enemy armor may use to flank us. If I'm a tank driver, me and a few buddies are moving on the city, trying to avoid Hinds, and support our infantry. The naval guys could be either a platform to launch planes or launch missiles against key targets inland.

 

The battle of this city ends when one side takes the city. This then opens up other objectives for the winning side, and alters new objectives for losing side. So it's a fluid campaign that does not end until one side is so weak it cannot continue the battle. And each member in the battle will have an objective, and the progress of the battle will be impacted by the performance of all of its members.

 

That doesn't sound boring to me. It's a totally watered down version of the campaign engine Falcon has now, and that was designed almost 15 years ago. It's doable.

 

Again, I don't think this is that much more than a data integration project. I know some will disagree with me, but if I'm in LOMAC and join a server, and I have 4 missions to pick from, those missions were created based on the current state of the campaign (possibly using triggers). I jump in my A-10 and go blow up whatever I am suppose to blow up. I will see the world from my perspective, using my graphics engine, sound, etc. The objects I see, and their position, type, etc. will be data that was passed to me from the battlefield engine. How that data got there is of no consequence to me. This same logic applies to all other sims participating in the battle. And real-time data is used in just about every sim today. It's not rocket science.

 

Somebody will do it eventually. I just hope it doesn't take 10 years.

Edited April 19, 2010 by robmypro

[GGTharos]

It will take more than 10 years.

[robmypro]

It will take more than 10 years.

 

Spoken like a true optimist! ;)

[GGTharos]

Unfortunate reality. Optimists have been saying 'it will become possible in 10 years' for 20 years now. ;)

[JimMack]

Unfortunate reality. Optimists have been saying 'it will become possible in 10 years' for 20 years now. ;)

 

Come to ITEC 2010 in May and have look at TFC stand B114

[GGTharos]

I'm aware of implementations for the military Jim, but ... when for us poor saps? :)

FYI thanks - I'll try to make it :)

 

Come to ITEC 2010 in May and have look at TFC stand B114

[Booger]

It will take more than 10 years.

 

It will take eleventeen years :thumbup:

[SFJackBauer]

Even if you brought all the power of Microsoft, with its entire budget and development teams, even then I think it would be impossible to make all you described in the near future. Just thinking about the server and bandwidth requirements makes me giggle.

 

And the balance issues? A modern attack helicopter squadron can decimate an unprotected armored company. Not fun for those playing tanks. Then you add air defense systems... Not fun for those playing choppers... Add SEAD aircraft, but then you'll need escorts, higher ranking SAMs systems, AWACS...

 

Please understand my point. I'm not the pessimist type, and I think every idea is worth consideration, otherwise we would be stuck with PCs with 640k memory (thanks Bill :D). However, there are viable ideas, and there are not viable ones.

 

I'd rather see that development time and effort spent on better modelling of more aircraft types, larger and more varied maps and... surprise... a dynamic campaign! :)