Linking DCS with ArmA

As some of you might know it's already possible to link VBS2 with Steel Beast (for example) using HLA/DIS gateway

The simulation send out signals via Gateways and then you will have Steel Beasts units showing up in VBS2 and Vice Versa.

 

EG. In VBS2 you may see a tank platoon of M1s (they will use the VBS2 models) but they are entirely controlled by SB or another system. Likewise you might see Inf, Armour or helos in SB and they will actually be controlled by VBS2.

 

It is also two way i.e. VBS2 Javelin Gunner can kill a SB T-72 etc.

VBS 2 & Helicopter Collective Aircrew Tactical Trainer :

Would you like to see this implemented in the DCS serie at some point ?

I'm not saying this should be done for the next DCS module.

I'm just asking if, in the future, you would like to see more cooperation between the -relatively- important studios of the simulation genre.

Same poll on the BI forum : here

For combined Arms that will be perfect, for the moment flying vehicle in Arma are really bad and unrealistic, same for AAA and SAM who will engage badly and without priority (will engage tank in priority and who can't aim really aircraft)

And in DCS ground vehicle and soldier AI are really bad, see ground AI controlled by Arma and air/anti air controlled by DCS will be the best thing ever.

Do JTAC mission with the most realistic ground simulation ever with combined Arms fidelity will be perfect and anyways embody JTAC and any ground unit in combined arms with the ugly graphic engine of DCS will be so bad and be killed cause AI in DCS are so stupid and not matter if we have 100 tank it won't protect us and finally we will die from stupid way in DCS...

Ground simulation with Arma and Air simulation with DCS

Arma 3 and DCS (next aircraft) with EDGE engine (better than actual but still extremely ugly for ground ops)

Thanks for your idea but like always and like every good idea that will not be listen and you will see a long list of people who prefer told you that it can't work rather than find a solution.

I hope for us that you will be listen !

Thanks !

if take the role of a FAC(A) in DCS, it is good,

Even if it were actually possible, I'd probably rather not want to see them linked. I already think that the DCS Caucuses map is too small. I'd probably go insane from claustrophobia if I was stuck on a minuscule ARMA II map.

Not to mention, pretty soon, we'll have battle commander mode available. That will fill in a lot of the missing human-on-the-ground element.

Basically, I don't want DCS limited by what is required for a first person shooter. Even if all DCS does is send data to ARMA II, and vice-versa, we'd still be stuck on the same damn horribly tiny map.

Instead of ED spending time making themselves able to share data with other games, I'd rather see ED take the time to further develop the rudimentary first-person elements that are already here in DCS. As some examples, you can currently walk around after ejection- this needs to be made to work in multiplayer. Next let us optionally spawn in that state, and to fly, we have to walk up to the jet and climb in. Then, make an FPS-style control set, and give us the ability to shoot our side arm. Slow, individually minor changes, that each add a new gameplay element to the game and have value in and of themselves, that eventually build DCS into supporting first person ground action would be preferable, IMO.

That would be really cool! I would definitely enjoy playing with real guys on the ground. However I agree with Speed that I wouldn't want to be confined to a small area as it is in arma 2 and 3. But that's not to say that the maps will always be small like that. Especially since Arma is a PC Only title. In the next say 5 years they might be able to have an environment as large as our AO.

EDIT: I voted yes btw

no. it's not going to happen. and it has no commercial uses.

In the next say 5 years they might be able to have an environment as large as our AO.

As much as i'd like to see it, not a chance. Bohemia is tuning their games so that current hardware can render out to 5-10 kilometres, if they don't undergo a radical paradigm shift (that would mean freezing visual quality or even decreasing it), it's not going to happen, not in 5 years at least.

Well, would I like to see this? Yeah sure, so voted yes.

But honestly I can't believe this would/could ever happen.

Bohemia is tuning their games so that current hardware can render out to 5-10 kilometres.

That just means we will be able to AGM-65 them from outside of their visibility radius. I have no problem with that.

Honestly the only reason I would not like to see interoperability like this is that people in ARMA would probably complain about game balancing. I have played other games where people think that every infantry soldier should be evenly matched with aircraft for "fairness", but this really destroys the experience.

I would much rather see DCS: Leclerc or other such ground modules rather than making some other game work.

I agree that it's not very likely given that there probably isn't much commercial gain to be had from the companies involved (particularly considering that Joe Public the gamer seems perfectly happy with "A10 For Dummies" as portrayed in games like ARMA, Battlefield, etc)

However, it IS technically possible, and everyone here complaining that the tiny map used by ARMA would limit the area the DCS:A-10 pilots could fly... well, I suspect you don't fully understand how this kind of gateway works. The games both run on completely different engines in this kind of arrangement. They also run on completely "different" maps (IE, one set up for the ARMA graphics engine and one set up for the DCS graphics engine). Those maps are made to look identical, but are not the "same" map. The two pieces of software then populate each other by transmitting coordinate locations for where "players" are on the map. All each piece of software knows about what's going on in the other piece of software is "there is an A-10 at coordinate X,Y,Z, pointed direction A, travelling speed B". That's it.

Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever preventing the ARMA portion of the game from playing on a 5x5 kilometer chunk in the middle of the DCS map. The ARMA players would simply see nothing from the DCS world outside that 5x5 chunk. The DCS world would still be played on the full DCS map, and the in the DCS world, vehicles/infantry OUTSIDE that 5x5 chunk would be controlled by DCS. If you got really fancy, you could have MULTIPLE ARMA games covering MULTIPLE 5x5 km chunks scattered across the DCS world.

Also, regarding game balance issues and infantry players whining about not equalling a fighter aircraft in combat power: there are perfectly functional workarounds to this "problem" without sacrificing realism.

Simply scale the quantity of units the player controls. If he choses to be a pilot, he controls a single aircraft. If he wants to be a tanker, let him control a 4-tank platoon (or in the case of the older/ less survivable Russian tanks, a 10-tank company). If he wants to play infantry, make him a platoon leader (with 30-50 soldiers; likely including at least a few ATGM and MANPADS operators). If the individual soldier/tank the player is playing is killed, automatically switch him to the next one. Of course, to make this really work, you need to have a very fluid, user-friendly command interface to order your subordinates around!

It does work; Steel Beasts uses that type of arrangement, and it is absolutely functional. It does take some getting used to, though... you have to learn to adjust your expectations of what you consider "losing"; a lot of players get really frustrated every time they get killed.... but in Steel Beasts, it's not unusual to lose a platoon or two of tanks and still win the battle. Frustrating as it may be to die a half dozen times, you're still ahead of the game.

Scaling the forces available to a player as a means of game balance has been around at least since the old X-Wing vs TIE Fighter games (good thing, because it would have been really frustrating to play a TIE fighter in 1-on-1... even having three of them was hard!)

Arma with DCS

This is the END for Bohemia Interactive ability. Yes, I would like to DCS ability link with ArmaII or III. Maybe DCS could have a addon for Bohemia Interactive the same way Arma I and II optic is (ACOG), that was made by Trijicon,Inc. The realism DCS can bring to Bohemia Interactive and Arma I,II and III is it interactive copit. For me it is the cold start ability. DCS could change all the vehicle this way.

(...)I'd probably go insane from claustrophobia if I was stuck on a minuscule ARMA II map.

 

(...)Basically, I don't want DCS limited by what is required for a first person shooter. Even if all DCS does is send data to ARMA II, and vice-versa, we'd still be stuck on the same damn horribly tiny map

Theoricaly, nothing prevent the ArmA's engine to handle bigger maps.

It is capable of doing so.

I don't know if you've already tried the 31st Normandy Mod, they've made a map recreating Britany, the channel and the south of England = 156.300 m x 156.300 m = 24.000 Km² !

Now , ok, still not as big as the caucasus map but that's a comfortable playground for a flight sim.

Also note +/- 50% of the caucasus map is water.

I'd rather see ED take the time to further develop the rudimentary first-person elements that are already here in DCS.

Well that's the whole point of linking those games. Why would you spend your time and money doing something someone else is already "mastering".

IMHO it's a waste of ressources.

ED would focus on what they do best : flight sims and BIS would focus on infantry. Linking them would allow you to enjoy best of both worlds.

Right now it takes 2-3 years to ED to develop a DCS module in its area of predilection : flight sim. How long would it take them to develop a module in an area they have no experience at all ?

Their engine is made around flight sim. Just take a look at the dynamic weather system. This kind of system has little to no use in a FPS.

That's why, IMHO, linking those 2 games would be more profitable than seeing ED and BIS improving on their own other aspect of their respectives universes.

Bohemia is tuning their games so that current hardware can render out to 5-10 kilometres

In ArmA 2 you can, with the mission editor, max out the VD up to 15 kilometers. Back in the ArmA 1 days it was possible to set the VD to 35 Km (I've heard it was possible to go higher but never seen it).

With Take On Helicopters you can go up to 20 Km without any scripts.

I think it's important to think outside the box. Do not base your judgement on what ArmA and DCS are right now but on what could they become in the future, if time and money are invested with this "linking" idea in mind.

That was the point of this poll, see if people wanted to see this investment (at the price of other aspects of the game).

 

Instead of ED spending time making themselves able to share data with other games, I'd rather see ED take the time to further develop the rudimentary first-person elements that are already here in DCS. As some examples, you can currently walk around after ejection- this needs to be made to work in multiplayer. Next let us optionally spawn in that state, and to fly, we have to walk up to the jet and climb in. Then, make an FPS-style control set, and give us the ability to shoot our side arm. Slow, individually minor changes, that each add a new gameplay element to the game and have value in and of themselves, that eventually build DCS into supporting first person ground action would be preferable, IMO.

Absolutely agreed on this!

At least let MP jettisoned/downed pilots be visible, first. Then add driveable vehicles/tanks/cars (from BattleCommander/JTAC mode) then perhaps sidearms and we would have rudimentary battlefield action integrated with minimum effort :-)

Can't see it happening, but this

"Even if it were actually possible, I'd probably rather not want to see them linked. I already think that the DCS Caucuses map is too small. I'd probably go insane from claustrophobia if I was stuck on a minuscule ARMA II map."

Wouldn't need to happen - ARMA could be confined to a small area (or areas - islands of detail) contained within a larger DCS map. Dcs player only sees DCS map, ARMA sees ARMA map inside the zone & barren wastes outside :-)

I think E.D. (TFC ?) is/was involved in a US Govt (DARPA ?) program investigating this concept for their own training - the technology might spin off some day...

what about Silent Hunter guys flooding our fleet?

or the Train Simulator folks taking a ride across the battlefield?

and OMG how could you forgot the honourable gentleman playing Farm Simulator under artillery fire?

:)

What would be the benefit of the companies that lend themselves to such an effort?

not only is this impractical, and impossible at this point, it's possibly not desirable. none of you know how this system really functions. you're just making assumptions. the likelihood of this having entertainment/commercial value is unknown.

a better idea would be to improve the game itself and incorporate viable features of other games so you don't have to "link" it to other games.

Personally, I think DCS (after releasing its jet module ) should start taking a look at putting more complex terrain and fps into the game. Walking around after you eject, things don't look too bad. With some work, you could probably get this game up to ARMA II level ground graphics. This would bring in a LOT of 3rd party modders. You might even get someone like the A.C.E. team to try to port over some of their mods. If this can't be done, I'd certainly like to see data sharing between the engines. The land of Chernarus is fine for FPS / driving distances, and would be just a small patch on DCS Baltic map. Its even fine for long range missles / radar. What more could an FPS guy want? And yet, the DCS players would still have the whole DCS map to fly in, which gives us a little elbow room. For those who think ARMA II is unrealistic, download the A.C.E. II realism mod. Now you even have to learn how to load and fire 105mm artillery. If DCS is an flight sim, ARMA2/ACE2 is an infantry, artillery sim. I would love to see these two companies come together on a project.

Also, regarding game balance issues and infantry players whining about not equalling a fighter aircraft in combat power: there are perfectly functional workarounds to this "problem" without sacrificing realism.

 

Simply scale the quantity of units the player controls. If he choses to be a pilot, he controls a single aircraft. If he wants to be a tanker, let him control a 4-tank platoon (or in the case of the older/ less survivable Russian tanks, a 10-tank company). If he wants to play infantry, make him a platoon leader (with 30-50 soldiers; likely including at least a few ATGM and MANPADS operators). If the individual soldier/tank the player is playing is killed, automatically switch him to the next one. Of course, to make this really work, you need to have a very fluid, user-friendly command interface to order your subordinates around!

 

It does work; Steel Beasts uses that type of arrangement, and it is absolutely functional. It does take some getting used to, though... you have to learn to adjust your expectations of what you consider "losing"; a lot of players get really frustrated every time they get killed.... but in Steel Beasts, it's not unusual to lose a platoon or two of tanks and still win the battle. Frustrating as it may be to die a half dozen times, you're still ahead of the game.

 

Scaling the forces available to a player as a means of game balance has been around at least since the old X-Wing vs TIE Fighter games (good thing, because it would have been really frustrating to play a TIE fighter in 1-on-1... even having three of them was hard!)

I wouldn't worry about scaling. I'd worry about that shilka hiding in the forest, or in an alleyway is going to do to your aircraft when it ambushes you. BMP3 and BTR-90 can also be nasty surprises, not to mention that solder in the bushes with an igla. The world of DCS is pretty serene with little cover. Not so in Arma. The bushes and leaves in the forest can blind you till you literally run into a tank at the forests edge (done that!). Villages are a rats nest of hiding places. And even if you do manage to do some mass damage, Arma players are used to that. You won't see many complaints there. Like DCS, damage is passed out in a pretty realistic way. You can die or be horribly wounded from one shot in the right place. DCS and ARMA would go very well together. BF3 players need not apply.

I mean this is great and all, but ED can't even come out with a dedicated server (command line server) for multiplayer. What makes you think they will do this in the next.....5 years?

Reading all of this, I have come to one conclusion. The BiS forums are DEAD.

Oh, and ED should get on the train and start selling physical products such as T-shirts and "fill to tabs" beer mugs.

what about Silent Hunter guys flooding our fleet?

or the Train Simulator folks taking a ride across the battlefield?

and OMG how could you forgot the honourable gentleman playing Farm Simulator under artillery fire?:)

Well, honestly...it would be great :D

What would be the benefit of the companies that lend themselves to such an effort?

For example you own DCS:XX.

This allows you to play DCS:XX alone or online with others DCS:XX owners. Now if you want to enjoy the "ultimate battlefield experience" (=linking your game to ArmA) you'd need to...buy ArmA ! And vice versa :)

Yeah, DCS:Arma. That would be great.

/me watches incoming A-10, while I hide in the ARMA bushes with an Igla. Bye Bye A-10!

In the end, I think it will be the DCS pilots yelling FOUL!

Yeah, DCS:Arma. That would be great.

 

/me watches incoming A-10, while I hide in the ARMA bushes with an Igla. Bye Bye A-10!

 

In the end, I think it will be the DCS pilots yelling FOUL!

Umm... no. If you were dumb enough to fly that low over all those ground troops, then definitely you deserve to be shot down.

Umm... no. If you were dumb enough to fly that low over all those ground troops, then definitely you deserve to be shot down.

For some shots, you'll have to come down. You can't stay up there forever! Especially when were using human shields, and housing our troops in the hospitals! :thumbup: