Unified Battlefield and Licensing

[robmypro]

My biggest wish for DCS would be to have a unified battlefield engine that other developers can create content for. DCS has already proved that multiple aircraft can exist within the same environment. The next logical step would be to license the engine so other developers can create content for that environment.

 

I imagine this could be similar to the MS XBox 360 approach, where companies have to submit their software for review by DCS. Or even the FSX model, where there is no quality review. This approach has the following benefits:

 

1. DCS earns additional revenue for licensing, which offsets their development efforts

2. DCS controls the quality of the add-ons being created by others

3. Additional resources can speed up development of other add-ons

4. The risk of future development is reduced for DCS

 

I would also like to see the following 3rd party add-ons:

 

1. Terrain/Maps

For example, right now we have one area we can fight in. Additional high quality maps created by 3rd party developers would open up DCS to more interesting regions of battle.

 

2. Vehicles

The ultimate battlefield would go much further than planes. We need tanks, carriers, battleships, AA guns, infantry, and more. If DCS could focus on the integration that is needed between these elements, 3rd party teams could add the actual content.

 

3. Aircraft

Teams can focus on the F/A-18, Falcon, F-15, etc. similar to what we see with FSX. It will grow the community a lot faster if we had high quality planes, vehicles, etc. The goal should be to go after the FSX developers, since many make very good aircraft.

 

I guess my wish is DCS decides to focus their attention of the tools and infrastructure needed to have a unified battlefield, and then license the technology so 3rd party developers can provide the content. Then we can have:

 

Flight sims

Naval sims

Tank sims

Infantry sims

Varied maps

Communication add-ons

Etc.

 

...all on one battlefield.

 

This is the future IMO, and I think ED has proven they are capable of taking us there. The question is, will they? If they do, ED would own and control the simulation category for a long time.

 

JMHO

Edited June 4, 2012 by robmypro

[Silver_Dragon]

+1

[Ghillied raptor]

That's a tall order... Besides I'm not certain that others can make quality simulators like the ED team. Imagine integrating everything into one system, it would be a nightmare. One can dream though.

[joey45]

By DCS, do you mean Eagle Dynamics..?

[Tek]

i have dreamed of such a world for many moons.

 

i would love to have a situation where we have real (virtual) men on the ground requesting real (virtual) air support.

 

:D:joystick:

[GGTharos]

All in good time .

[Nate--IRL--]

This is the future IMO, and I think DCS has proven they are capable of taking us there. The question is, will they? If they do, DCS would own and control the simulation category for a long time.

 

JMHO

 

This is a long term goal from what I understand, however it will require significant work to produce the SDKs required for 3rd party content generation.

 

EDIT:- I have no insider knowledge here - this is only from what I've read on the public forums.

 

Nate

[Migow]

+1:smilewink:

[robmypro]

That's a tall order... Besides I'm not certain that others can make quality simulators like the ED team. Imagine integrating everything into one system, it would be a nightmare. One can dream though.

 

I think others can, especially if you look at FSX aircraft. Some awesome ones have been built, not to mention scenery, airports, etc.

[robmypro]

All in good time .

 

Great to hear!

[robmypro]

i have dreamed of such a world for many moons.

 

i would love to have a situation where we have real (virtual) men on the ground requesting real (virtual) air support.

 

:D:joystick:

 

It would be awesome. But i would prefer that ED not build that FPS but instead provide the hooks so ARMA2 could plug in. I think the industry need some sort of consortium between developers to build the infrastructure. Maybe this is bigger than any one company.

[robmypro]

By DCS, do you mean Eagle Dynamics..?

 

What do you think?

[robmypro]

This is a long term goal from what I understand, however it will require significant work to produce the SDKs required for 3rd party content generation.

 

EDIT:- I have no insider knowledge here - this is only from what I've read on the public forums.

 

Nate

 

What about the notion of ED working with other companies to design and build the foundation for this? Because if i am going to buy BF3 or COD i would love to able to use it with DCS. Imagine compatibility for DCS built into BF3 or COD.

 

Servers would have slots for infantry, planes, ships, etc. that way we would have balance.

 

The more i think about this, the more i think it needs to be an industry movement.

[GGTharos]

Not much a chance right now. That is an extremely difficult proposition to get working. These games you're talking about only cover a small amount of virtual terrain. DCS could not even hope to provide terrain at the detail you see in such games and remain a proper flight sim. It's just a limitation of existing technology (not ED's technology. It's a limitation of computers flat out).

[Pougatchev]

A possibility can be synchronized two different engine with the same map.

 

But what a dream, i can't imagine the work for that.

 

I think when i was grandpa we can see something like this.

 

Just 40 years to wait... :D

[robmypro]

Not much a chance right now. That is an extremely difficult proposition to get working. These games you're talking about only cover a small amount of virtual terrain. DCS could not even hope to provide terrain at the detail you see in such games and remain a proper flight sim. It's just a limitation of existing technology (not ED's technology. It's a limitation of computers flat out).

 

What about something like ARMA 2? The maps are are pretty big. I think some are around 225 square kilometers. I do agree it would be a massive undertaking, and it would force development to look at the problem from the ground up.

 

If I am a fighter jock, I really don't need to see the world in the same detail as the FPS does. But I do need to know about threats and other activity at a detail level that matters to me. Same goes for the FPS. He may need to know I am flying overhead, but he does not need to know all the details about the systems on my plane. Just type, location, speed, condition. But even the condition could be dumbed down for the FSP. He doesn't need to know my avionics are out. Just seeing smoke tells him what a real person would know. Something is wrong with that plane!

 

If I am manning a carrier, I need more details about the aircraft in my vicinity, but the detail drops off as the threats get further away. And I doubt I would need any detail about the FPS guys, unless they were very close.

 

One challenge would be loading a huge map for a FPS. But realistically, the FPS guy only needs data for a smaller area around them. The rest is not relevant, and should not be loaded. I can see the possibility to cross over from a map section to another, but maybe we limit the FPS player to a set region when they join, so they don't need to load the entire map. So it is basically a set of maps all running concurrently, and sharing state between each other to the degree needed by the unit. And some units (such as planes) would have the entire map, but at far less detail than the FPS guy would. It would be a layered approach. Of course a missile or plane can fly through multiple maps, so that data would be shared to the FPS person.

 

My point is we need to stop thinking of the problem using current development approaches, and rethink it. Of course a BF3 player's system would choke on a huge map. And honestly, I think we would want the ARMA folks instead of either the COD or BF players.

 

It would be a massive undertaking, but I think it would actually be far better for everyone in the long run. The wasted effort building new graphics engines, terrains, physics models, etc.. The time saved not having to duplicate all this effort would make maintaining a framework like this very beneficial.

 

Somebody is going to do it, and since ED is already moving in that direction they should be the ones to spearhead this IMO. They have a head start.

[robmypro]

A possibility can be synchronized two different engine with the same map.

 

But what a dream, i can't imagine the work for that.

 

I think when i was grandpa we can see something like this.

 

Just 40 years to wait... :D

 

We put a man on the moon in less than a decade.

[GGTharos]

What about something like ARMA 2? The maps are are pretty big. I think some are around 225 square kilometers. I do agree it would be a massive undertaking, and it would force development to look at the problem from the ground up.

 

DCS is more than 140000km^2. ARMA is still tiny.

 

One challenge would be loading a huge map for a FPS. But realistically, the FPS guy only needs data for a smaller area around them.

 

Sure. But how do you then play 'all over' the map? Think about this - you need 100x the map that ARMA2 has now, or you'll be playing in the same location forever.

 

My point is we need to stop thinking of the problem using current development approaches, and rethink it. Of course a BF3 player's system would choke on a huge map. And honestly, I think we would want the ARMA folks instead of either the COD or BF players.

 

People who are into this business have already thought about it. Some sims were integrated for the military at great cost, and they have their limitations as well.

 

You can pretty much forget it for the consumer market as things are right now, IMHO.

[robmypro]

Sure. But how do you then play 'all over' the map? Think about this - you need 100x the map that ARMA2 has now, or you'll be playing in the same location forever.

 

I appreciate the discussion, and i hope some of these ideas make it to the people who decide this stuff. I have been involved in software development for 20 years, so what i am saying isn't purely pie in the sky. But i also don't live in the gaming world either, so i understand there are challenges i am ignorant of. But i prefer to find a way instead of looking for reasons it wouldn't work.

 

For instance, do you really need to load the whole map? It wouldn't make sense for a lot of reasons. First, FPS players would be spread out too much. So if i tried to join the battle i would have a list of cities showing the players and slots available. Say each city supports 32 players. So the players would not need a map any larger than what ARMA2 has, and that size works for tanks and armor as well.

 

There is the issue of being able to only interact within one map for the FPS player, but the maps are big enough that it wouldnt be a real issue imo.

[GGTharos]

That isn't what I said though. Aside from issues with a server possibly having to load multiple maps for various infantrymen, in order to simulate all of the available terrain, you NEED to have this terrain on disk, and it's huge. Not just in terms of gigabytes, but also in terms of effort to make said terrain happen.

 

For instance, do you really need to load the whole map? It wouldn't make sense for a lot of reasons

[robmypro]

That isn't what I said though. Aside from issues with a server possibly having to load multiple maps for various infantrymen, in order to simulate all of the available terrain, you NEED to have this terrain on disk, and it's huge. Not just in terms of gigabytes, but also in terms of effort to make said terrain happen.

 

Sorry, i didn't mean to misinterpret your words. On the point of the maps, lets say we took the DCS map that you said was massive. Now we have FPS versions of cities within that space. But each player only loads the map they are playing. The map the fighters are on would be on a different server from the FPS players. Then players from each map send data to a central server which then sends the data down to the clients on other maps. So the FPS players do not need to even have on disk other player maps. The key is being able to send and receive data from a central server, which updates everyone with info relevant to them. Could latency be an issue? Sure. You would have to be very carefull about the information that is transfered.

 

It is a big job, but i think ED has enough smart people to figure it out. And i think the best approach would be to have a clean sheet of paper approach instead of thinking how to retrofit BS or the A-10.

[GGTharos]

That has already been done for the military, IIRC. Very costly, has its own issues.

 

To do it for the public it would also require cooperation from other companies - how to interpret the physics from one server to another, for example? How to make sure the buildings line up? Radio comms?

 

It is an insane task - maybe if ED was huge and also had an ARMA division ...

[robmypro]

So to answer your question, the FPS guys join the map they want to for that session, which means a city. They could then battle other FPS players and have access to calling in air strikes, which send data to the central server, and then down to squadrons. If they want to switch to a different city (maybe another city sends a request for reinforcements) they can log out of the city they are in and log in to another, if space permits. Each server runs one or two cities max, and the central server keeps the info flowing.

 

There would be challenges! Not saying otherwise.

[GGTharos]

Yeah, it's not that it is an unheard of or silly idea ... just that currently it is highly impractical :)

[robmypro]

To do it for the public it would also require cooperation from other companies - how to interpret the physics from one server to another, for example? How to make sure the buildings line up? Radio comms? It is an insane task - maybe if ED was huge and also had an ARMA division ...

 

Agree it should be an industry push to reduce risk. Regarding lining up the buildings, the way i see it the buildings would be at exactly the same location on the map. The difference is in fidelity. For the fighter pilot the building is basic. For the FPS player far more detailed. We are talking about tracking coordinates. Take the huge map from DCS and slice it up into smaller pieces for the FPS maps. Then add detail to it so it exists properly in the FPS world. The A-10 pilot does not need that level of detail. Maybe take the same map and tweak it for the tank player. They dont need the same fidelity that the FPS player or pilot needs.

 

So this should go a long way towards solving the map problem.

 

Radio comes should be squad based. When i join a squad on the FPS level i can communicate with my team. Same thing for my squadron. Maybe i can communicate directly with my wingman or package by voice, but other requests could be made via menu commands.

 

Obviously physics would have to be standardized within each role. If you are building an F/A-18 sim you need to use common physics with other flight sims. But you guys are already making great strides in that department.

 

What other problems?

 

Btw, what development tools are you guys using?

Edited November 11, 2011 by robmypro