CA 1.5?

[falcon_120]

on the subject of smoke....I dont know how many of you have ever see what 30 vehicles burning looks like...or a forest or town on fire...but the pillar of smoke does not dissipate at 200ft....its not just a DCS problem...no game really simulate smoke correctly....a single vehicle that has burn for 1 hour should leave a pillar of smoke that is visible for miles, and some one at an increased elevation (like in an airplane), should be able to see it for a very far distance....30 combat vehicals destroyed (like a battlefront) should leave a smoke field that streaches from the ground all the way to the heavens...like the curtains to a stage....large battlefields and massive destruction can be seen for 50 to 100 miles in some cases...

 

 

....like I said..not just a DCS problem....its a pc and game code limitation we currently live with....but may one day.....

 

 

 

Absolutely agreed, something similar happens with big sams like patriot,s300... The smoke should stay much longer and more visible from 20000-30000 ft. Hopefully all this will be wip.

[TraxusIV]

I'd like to see some mix between procedurally generated or elevation data generated terrain, and detailed maps. Currently, you just get flat featureless terrain if you fly off the map. It would be nice to have all the maps connected on a globe by something that looks plausible, even if it isn't populated with houses and stuff. It would be very cool to be able to fly from Nevada to Caucaus, and have something interesting to look at along the way. It would make long range bomber sorties possible, too.

[Darkwolf]

forest or town on fire

 

I did. (former firefighter).

 

Simply said : No game engine or computer can render that volume of particle at the moment. Sad but true.

[howie87]

But clouds can be rendered so I don't see how smoke can't...

[Dr. Yes]

Well, my experience in shooters has always been a lot of smoke really brings down the FPS. But that may be different now in games where its put mostly on the GPU.

[Davis0079]

this is a picture of a CBU going off....look at how much smoke is in the city from the previous attacks....gives real meaning to the saying, Fog of war... visibility is very low at this point....

 

and since this is a CA 1.5 thread I'll say this....any troops on the ground are facing the biggest impact from all the smoke....

 

edit....technically its a phosphorus bomb of some sort...not a cluster bomb for use against armor

 

Edited January 17, 2014 by Davis0079

[Davis0079]

Best if dropped in pairs

 

[Dr. Yes]

Yeah, I remember thats what the Israelis got in so much trouble for using against "ground troops".

[sobek]

But clouds can be rendered so I don't see how smoke can't...

 

Clouds aren't the same effect type.

[BBQ]

As to my opinion: Smoke 'em if ya got 'em.

 

:megalol:

[Davis0079]

Clouds aren't the same effect type.

 

 

very correct.

 

..especially when referring to house or forests fires...the ash fallout is indescribable....thats what Darkwolf meant when saying " No game engine or computer can render that volume of particle at the moment." smoke would almost be the easy part .....the ash fallout would need its own rendering to look like grey/glowing red snow....and the smoke would need to be...well...smoke...then you need a fog like smoke effect in addition to the smoke column .definitely not like clouds.

 

 

but would be beyond cool if ever accomplished even semi realistic

[Davis0079]

Yeah, I remember thats what the Israelis got in so much trouble for using against "ground troops".

 

correct again....both those pics came from pages that the very next pic was of a protester holding a picket sign saying "Ban Cluster Munitions".....many think of it as being unsportsmen like...much like the gas attacks of the first world war.....the retreating Iraq solders in the first US/Iraq war got annihilated by the then new CBU87 and the next morning the world got to see how powerful cluster munitions really are...miles and miles of destroyed vehicles and men....so now we boycott them....we want to kill you...but not that quickly....one at a time, helps us sleep better at night....

[remon]

correct again....both those pics came from pages that the very next pic was of a protester holding a picket sign saying "Ban Cluster Munitions".....many think of it as being unsportsmen like...much like the gas attacks of the first world war.....the retreating Iraq solders in the first US/Iraq war got annihilated by the then new CBU87 and the next morning the world got to see how powerful cluster munitions really are...miles and miles of destroyed vehicles and men....so now we boycott them....we want to kill you...but not that quickly....one at a time, helps us sleep better at night....

 

Although off topic, I'll bite. The world doesn't have a problem with cluster munitions because they're brutal. The world has the same problem with it because of all the submunitions that are left unexploded, and like landmines, cause problems to people after the end of the war.

 

As for the Highway of Death, I'll just quote wikipedia:

 

"The offensive action for which Highway 80 is infamous became controversial with some commentators alleging disproportionate use of force, saying that the Iraqi forces were retreating from Kuwait in compliance with the original UN Resolution 660 of August 2, 1990; and the column allegedly included Kuwaiti hostages[8] and civilian refugees. The alleged refugees included women and children family members of pro-Iraqi, PLO-aligned Palestinian militants and Kuwaiti collaborators who had fled shortly before the returning Kuwaiti authorities pressured nearly 200,000 Palestinians to leave Kuwait. Activist and former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark alleged that these attacks violated the Third Geneva Convention, Common Article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." Clark included it in his 1991 report WAR CRIMES: A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal".

 

Again, no problem with the brutality of the cluster bomb, it's just a whole other matter.

[NineLine]

Yes, too far off topic.... lets get back to CA 1.5 please.

[uboats]

Yes, too far off topic.... lets get back to CA 1.5 please.

 

Will there be any big upgrade? How about the F1 view, is there any in-cockpit driving?

[Davis0079]

not much has been said about 1.5, just that improvements ARE being looked at, and a CA 1.5 will be available one day....remember, as of current, DCS is a flight sim...CA is an addition to that...you may never see a first person POV or cockpit system developed...I personally would love it if a 3rd party attempted a low fidelity DCS: M1A1 Abrams or a DCS: T-72....or anything along those lines....a DCS: ATC or DCS:Ground Crew could all be very low fidelity, yet EXTREMELY cool addition to online play....

 

as of now CA is a unit mover/ RTS ...most current missions aren't really built for CA alone...its mostly a device to give you, the pilot of a airframe, the option to advance the battlefield when needed, or you, the mission builder, a free'er hand in what types of missions you build and play

 

....and ofcourse the hopes are its main objective is to lay the ground work for additional ground addons and improvements....first person view....downed pilot capabilities and rescue...loading and unloading of supply and transport vehicles....hopefully one day amphibious operations through CA to build upon the naval aspect and the F-18...

 

....probably another year till we see any real direction from anything related to CA...then however long it takes to actually move in that direction....

Edited January 18, 2014 by Davis0079

[uboats]

not much has been said about 1.5, just that improvements ARE being looked at, and a CA 1.5 will be available one day....remember, as of current, DCS is a flight sim...CA is an addition to that...you may never see a first person POV or cockpit system developed...I personally would love it if a 3rd party attempted a low fidelity DCS: M1A1 Abrams or a DCS: T-72....or anything along those lines....a DCS: ATC or DCS:Ground Crew could all be very low fidelity, yet EXTREMELY cool addition to online play....

 

as of now CA is a unit mover/ RTS ...most current missions aren't really built for CA alone...its mostly a device to give you, the pilot of a airframe, the option to advance the battlefield when needed, or you, the mission builder, a free'er hand in what types of missions you build and play

 

....and ofcourse the hopes are its main objective is to lay the ground work for additional ground addons and improvements....first person view....downed pilot capabilities and rescue...loading and unloading of supply and transport vehicles....hopefully one day amphibious operations through CA to build upon the naval aspect and the F-18...

 

....probably another year till we see any real direction from anything related to CA...then however long it takes to actually move in that direction....

 

 

great ambition :lol:

steel beasts will be going to cry

[Esac_mirmidon]

The main problem with CA is his terrible perfomance in Multiplayer.

 

His great potential as a module for DCS falls when every online server get crashes after or before using CA.

[Silver_Dragon]

remember, as of current, DCS is a flight sim...CA is an addition to that...you may never see a first person POV or cockpit system developed

 

Sorry but....

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=89885

DCS stands for “Digital Combat Simulator”. DCS is a world simulation engine permitting the user to operate or direct a growing number of combat and civilian aircraft, ground vehicles and ships, from different historical eras, in different geographical locations and at different levels of fidelity. It is a true "sand box" simulation.

 

The only "real" problem now of CA (except the MP issues) and any other module out of planes and hellos, has the inability of assign a "pilot-able" cockpit to a vehicle (or ship) via .lua (and .dlls) and use them into DCS: W. That can change if ED improve the "pilot" feature in the editor and improve the subsequent pilot-able code into DCS: W.

 

Now you have some important features implemented on DCS: W to give a vehicle can coming alive, actual modules have the ability to build with multi-post and IA control over pilot-able vehicles and weapons (and the future MP multi-crew). If put them on a vehicle (tank or similar), you will can build a M-1A2 or a T-72 with four crew posts, and assign AI functions to the crew.

 

The "realistic" feature (ballistic computers, armour, ammunitions, crew transport) can be take some more time, but the actual process of develop of ED and 3rd parties has show if you like, you can make them with hard work.

 

EDIT: Remembrer, actual pilots use first person POV and "can" use vehicles

Edited January 19, 2014 by Silver_Dragon

[Davis0079]

not sure what your getting at...I said, AS OF NOW, DCS is a fight sim.....anyone who thinks this is a foolish statement, has never played it....AS of RIGHT NOW...DCS is a flight sim with the ability to move ground forces...nothing more...

 

 

...good luck proving otherwise....just because they say they are a total war simulator...doesn't make it so....I can say Call of Duty is a political real time strategy...but I'm guessing anyone thats actually played it will have a different opinion.....as they say, "proof is in the pudding".....

 

the quote you link is also not true...although it IS a look to the future and an advertisement for things to come...but...AS OF RIGHT NOW (1/19/14)...you cannot (outside of the mission editior) control or direct civilian aircraft or naval units....you cannot (with or with out the editior), play in different locations or time eras.....AS OF CURRENT...DCS IS A FIGHT SIM WITH THE ABILITY TO MOVE /DIRECT GROUND UNITS

Edited January 19, 2014 by Davis0079

[Marko321]

not sure what your getting at...I said, AS OF NOW, DCS is a fight sim.....anyone who thinks this is a foolish statement, has never played it....AS of RIGHT NOW...DCS is a flight sim with the ability to move ground forces...nothing more...

 

 

...good luck proving otherwise....just because they say they are a total war simulator...doesn't make it so....I can say Call of Duty is a political real time strategy...but I'm guessing anyone thats actually played it will have a different opinion.....as they say, "proof is in the pudding".....

 

the quote you link is also not true...although it IS a look to the future and an advertisement for things to come...but...AS OF RIGHT NOW (1/19/14)...you cannot (outside of the mission editior) control or direct civilian aircraft or naval units....you cannot (with or with out the editior), play in different locations or time eras.....AS OF CURRENT...DCS IS A FIGHT SIM WITH THE ABILITY TO MOVE /DIRECT GROUND UNITS

 

 

 

I agree with your comments.

The whole concept of using modules is an excellent one. (kudus DCS)

But Combined Arms does not do this approach any favours Its fun.

And in fairness to the developers they have stated its a work in progress.

But you could not call CA a ground warfare simulation.

There is only one simulation on the market that you could say is.

[jbrking]

Since patch 1.2.7 any A.I aircraft that is set as uncontrolled for the purposes of use from a ground commander can no longer be activated. Apparently halos are not effected by this bug though I'm fairly upset that this is broken AFTER the patch and not before...

[NineLine]

Since patch 1.2.7 any A.I aircraft that is set as uncontrolled for the purposes of use from a ground commander can no longer be activated. Apparently halos are not effected by this bug though I'm fairly upset that this is broken AFTER the patch and not before...

 

 

 

AI Aircraft control is set to be a feature at a later date, its not a bug, its not available right now.

[shagrat]

...as just to mention civilian aircraft: UH-1H Huey has more than one flyable civilian skin. No need for weapons, no need for military mission. Have a look at TooTall's "virtual Flight Company" :D

[Nirvi]

Combined Arms is already labeled as 1.5 on steam

http://store.steampowered.com/app/240300/

 

Does this mean the version we got in 1.2.8 is already Combined Arms 1.5 or will there be another update?