Tanks in DCS

Hi everyone, this isn't really request but more of an inquiry, has ED ever considered adding high fidelity tank modules to DCS. BTW i'm not referring to modern tanks like the Leopard 2 or Abrams, i was thinking more about tanks from the 1960s like the AMX-30, Leopard 1 or M60.

It's been a few years, but they once requested any declassified documents on the Abrams people happened to stumble across. So, yes, they've definitely thought about it, though to date nothing more was ever said or done.

My post history only goes back a few months, I tried to find it, I think was back in my pre-forum lurking days, I'm not sure.

Yes, they did indeed as zhukov said. Wags put out a request for documents about the M1 Abrams for this purpose, but this post has been deleted later, so you won't find it anymore.

Edit: I was wrong. The post still exists: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=121008

Edit2: See this thread for more info: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122331

Good job, also confirmed I was lurking for years before showing up :p 2014... time flies. I think I had a Saitek X52 on a laptop back then. *sigh* I had no idea what was coming :p

Thanks for the information, i brought the subject up because i've always found it strange that there are very few tank simulators. Maybe if ED started with an older tank they could find all the information they need to develope it, and with the middle east map in game it would be interesting playing tanks with aircraft providing air cover and helicopters acting as spotters, I also thought it would be interesting to be able to put three or four players on the same tank when playing multiplayer and also with the Super Tucano coming along it could be a very interesting combination.

I think full sim tanks is cool and all, but in the DCS environment, it's mostly going to be a single aircraft obliterating entire columns that can't really fight back. Kind of like it already is. If you put 3-4 people per tank and charge $60+ for them, you are multiplying the angst by 10x.

Ever play War Thunder? They mix air and ground. Even with unguided bombs and 'one and done' the slaughter is pretty one sided, barring gross incompetence on the pilot's side. Now, give that plane long range standoff weapons like Mavericks, Vikhrs, Kh-25s, etc, they'll be dying from stuff they don't even see.

Player controlled AAA or SAMs would be more feasible, but tanks/apcs? Unless you remove or heavily restrict the numbers and types of aircraft, it's going to be pretty rough. Real world isn't balanced or fun, it's generally one side or the other (or both) enduring wholesale slaughter. Thus the minimal presence of aircraft in most ground focused games like SB or Arma, the force multiplication and potential for mass destruction is difficult to balance unless you go full on arcade.

I think full sim tanks is cool and all, but in the DCS environment, it's mostly going to be a single aircraft obliterating entire columns that can't really fight back. Kind of like it already is. If you put 3-4 people per tank and charge $60+ for them, you are multiplying the angst by 10x.

 

Ever play War Thunder? They mix air and ground. Even with unguided bombs and 'one and done' the slaughter is pretty one sided, barring gross incompetence on the pilot's side. Now, give that plane long range standoff weapons like Mavericks, Vikhrs, Kh-25s, etc, they'll be dying from stuff they don't even see.

 

Player controlled AAA or SAMs would be more feasible, but tanks/apcs? Unless you remove or heavily restrict the numbers and types of aircraft, it's going to be pretty rough. Real world isn't balanced or fun, it's generally one side or the other (or both) enduring wholesale slaughter. Thus the minimal presence of aircraft in most ground focused games like SB or Arma, the force multiplication and potential for mass destruction is difficult to balance unless you go full on arcade.

A simulator isnt about balance besides. It's there no reason why a missiondesigner couldnt limit the role of aircraft if need be or limit certain weapon types. (ie mavericks for EG)

Also to note Iif mass destruction is a problem than just let any tanker hop into ai controlled units simple as that as we already can do with combined arms.

Edit:

Also please don't compare to war yhunder lol. It's not just q matter of realism but how the scenario is setup its always 32 vs 32.

And plane are no op. Only a few vocal minority whiners drastically have blown it out of proportion. It's fine how it works but ultimately dcs is not an arcade online style game.

Flying from cockpit is different than using 3rd person control scheme where one has far greater all around situational awareness

In the last week Chizh interview, he talk about don’t be feasible and profitable an air-defense module. We can suppose a tank module can be a "similar" line on the the complexity, cost and sales. Other points has meanwhile ED expected someday implement mounting troops into vehicles or helos, they has not plans to build a module to simulate infantry. Has not a DCS goal.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3603548&postcount=1321

I think a "hardcore" tank / IFV / APC module, similar to a ship / submarine (at any level) on DCS has not be practical, the time to recreate ambient, physics, armour, systems and other dont compense the develop, and meanwhile ED dont implement the appropriate dlls to build modules, we only can speculate.

IIRC Combined Arms is slated to get a major upgrade at some point. It wouldn't surprise me if armour got much more detailed interiors & systems as part of that.

My dream scenario would be for ED to try talks again with the people behind Steel Beasts - they would be a perfect fit to take care of armour modules for DCS World.

@Kev2Go

I didn't play Arcade, I played simulator combined arms, you did not get aiming aides or external views. You had to bomb your targets the old fashioned way. Has nothing to do with whining or OP this or that, it is a fact : aircraft obliterate ground targets, era is irrelevant. It's also 16v16 unless they changed something recently. It's also a valid comparison as it is one of the only games that does something similar to the requested. Btw, TV guided Mavericks from 10 miles are going to be way worse than being dumb bombed with a floating cursor.

It's true simulators aren't about balance, but it IS still about fun, though, and nobody is going to have fun being obliterated by A-10s or Ka-50s =) Yes, the mission designer can restrict it to ground only, or only Yak-52s and L-39s, won't THAT be fun and realistic.

And yeah, you can solve it by just spawning instantly into another vehicle as your column gets gibbed, isn't THAT realistic and in the spirit of DCS! Just because it's how it works now in that frankenstein monster of CA doesn't mean it's what the goal should be. What's the point of modeling the vehicles if the solution to a glaring problem is 'MASH RESPAWNZ MOAR NEWB'?

I'm not saying no, I'm saying it's not going to be easy to integrate in a fashion that makes it fun. That's why you don't see the two mixed often, as I already said.

I can see CA getting a good polish up when resources allow. That alone will be great, more VR support etc. I think once this gets more polished and playable, ED can then decide if it's worth expanding the into high fidelity CA. For now tho, just expand the assets to work as FC3 / CA3 modern tank combat? etc

A real chess type of game would be good here, it wouldn't be as easy picking off tanks when you have people in Tor's and tunguska's hiding in the trees + air assets + teamspeak = ambush, well that's where I would be waiting hidden LOL.:D

I think they should just focus now on the pliability of it all and not just high fidelity items, unless that becomes an option further down the road.

or only Yak-52s and L-39s, won't THAT be fun and realistic

Yeah, it is. I run a PvE COIN server occasionally and I only have L-39ZA, Mi-8, Huey and tac commander slots available and I can tell you it's great fun. Now, most folks only want to furball and kill tanks from 10 miles out so I usually don't see much participation, but who cares really?

I can see CA getting a good polish up when resources allow.

Yeah, it should. Plus finally fix the AI pathfinding bugs and problems etcetera.

IIRC Combined Arms is slated to get a major upgrade at some point. It wouldn't surprise me if armour got much more detailed interiors & systems as part of that.

 

My dream scenario would be for ED to try talks again with the people behind Steel Beasts - they would be a perfect fit to take care of armour modules for DCS World.

CA dont centre on build armour interior and realistic system, your has only comand troops and the JTAC visor with the secondary gunner generic post and the pseudo driver post . The initial CA was the conversion of the old JTAC trainer for the UK Army.

http://www.thebattlesim.com/joint_fires_jtac_simulation/

I recommend dont get "dreams" about joint force with other companies. The have your "professional" markets.

The main problem about CA has been the missing about build effective tactics on ground environment. Has great quantity of features missing, as proper infantry types, formations and use, transport them by vehicles, helos and sea to control sites realistic. A better artillery with ammunition management and some type of "ballistic computer" to build proper mission fire. Missing some ammunition types. A "realistic" logistic convoy system. Crew served weapons, build fortifications and deploy / clear minefields. Radio nets on ground forces, and some kind of RTS to get some tactical / operational environment to CA.

About a tank module, need first solve some "problems":

- A realistic suspension, track / wheel physics, and improve turn radius, inertia and engines.

- Implement the old damage model into vehicles or wait to the new damage model.

- Implement a Advance Armour model to simulate hits, penetration and damage.

- Proper ballistic computers, smoke launchers, realistic thermals.

- Multicrew with capability to enter and exit to the vehicle (Chizh talk about DCS has not a infantry simulator).

- Crew exposed to damage.

And a long etc.

Yeah, it is. I run a PvE COIN server occasionally and I only have L-39ZA, Mi-8, Huey and tac commander slots available and I can tell you it's great fun. Now, most folks only want to furball and kill tanks from 10 miles out so I usually don't see much participation, but who cares really?

You don't usually see much participation, huh? So, build something that is largely unusable unless gameified to the point nobody will actually play it, by your own admission? Sounds like a recipe for a high sales module, alright @@

Somethings don't blind together very well in a game environment, ground play and aircraft are one of those things. Strategically, yes. FPS style? No, because the power differential is too great. Individual tanks are out of DCS' scope for a wide variety of reasons.

It's designed for single sorties of small groups of aircraft :p The distances involved for ground vehicles would be so long they'd spend an hour or two just driving to the area, unless we're going to have 'spawnzones' comically close to the battle area.

Lol it's a neat idea on paper, but in practice is terrible and isn't going to be done, because the designers have more sense than most of their customers :p

Meaning me and others chasing armored insurgents in the mountains, with an occasional AC/chopper opposing us, is "largely unusable"? Well maybe to a furballer like yourself - but then, you guys are a dime in a dozen anyway.

NEXT!

Actually, the comparison with WT isn't fair : WT is about sending planes and tanks in a flat, 3 km large area with great ease to see vehicles from the sky and no proper AAA or SAM defense during 80% of the game.

In DCS, you perfectly can be in a tank on a huge battlefield without ever meeting a plane while there are some in the area. If you decide to hide in a forest, well, the A-10 or the kamov are not magic, they won't find you.

Nicolas

Fair points there Nicholas.

If you have MBT equipped insurgents, it's probably time to give up and flee to your Caribbean resort get away :p

@Kev2Go

I didn't play Arcade, I played simulator combined arms, you did not get aiming aides or external views. You had to bomb your targets the old fashioned way. Has nothing to do with whining or OP this or that, it is a fact : aircraft obliterate ground targets, era is irrelevant. It's also 16v16 unless they changed something recently. It's also a valid comparison as it is one of the only games that does something similar to the requested. Btw, TV guided Mavericks from 10 miles are going to be way worse than being dumb bombed with a floating cursor.

 

It's true simulators aren't about balance, but it IS still about fun, though, and nobody is going to have fun being obliterated by A-10s or Ka-50s =) Yes, the mission designer can restrict it to ground only, or only Yak-52s and L-39s, won't THAT be fun and realistic.

 

And yeah, you can solve it by just spawning instantly into another vehicle as your column gets gibbed, isn't THAT realistic and in the spirit of DCS! Just because it's how it works now in that frankenstein monster of CA doesn't mean it's what the goal should be. What's the point of modeling the vehicles if the solution to a glaring problem is 'MASH RESPAWNZ MOAR NEWB'?

 

 

I'm not saying no, I'm saying it's not going to be easy to integrate in a fashion that makes it fun. That's why you don't see the two mixed often, as I already said.

add a few tk22 tunguska escorts and maybe a couple sa15's tag along the tanks columb , inside an S300 covered zone and maybe tanks columns wont get attacked with such impunity

or as ive said a Mission designer can limit what weapons are used ( ie restricting guided muntions) if it deemed necessary.

or for servers to only have a couple of planes and a predominately ground only force. Not everyone is into tanks and others may not be completely int planes. As it stands there arent many tanks sims on the market ,and the only viable one that is ( steel beasts) whilst most realistic tank sim ( with current service tanks) , is still hopelessly outdated with its engine.

Actually, the comparison with WT isn't fair : WT is about sending planes and tanks in a flat, 3 km large area with great ease to see vehicles from the sky and no proper AAA or SAM defense during 80% of the game.

 

In DCS, you perfectly can be in a tank on a huge battlefield without ever meeting a plane while there are some in the area. If you decide to hide in a forest, well, the A-10 or the kamov are not magic, they won't find you.

 

Nicolas

great points

If you have MBT equipped insurgents' date=' it's probably time to give up and flee to your Caribbean resort get away :p[/quote']

 

The whole point is that I don't. It's light armor only. Would use even lighter hardware such as technicals etc. if those were available, but no.

 

Caribbean insurgents, you say? Now THAT is an interesting idea ;)

I think tanks are a great idea. I do not really go with the theory of tanks being non functional due to the pilots tearing them up. As stated, proper use of cover, better AI with AA and AAA will help flesh out a tank or armor module. There is still a big following of tank simmers out there waiting for this day to come. Steel Beasts is good but outdated similar to the Falcon sim, yet still has loyal followers.

I believe with the new tech DCS has implemented along with the various maps, it would be great to introduce more realistic mobile units. The middle east map and Normandy would be a good test bed for this. I know CA needs to be updated, but this could be part of that process. There are a lot of armor units that would be fun to use in the WW2 setting.

As far as staging goes, many ground units are forward deployed ahead of our aircraft in real world environments. In fact most the time its the ground units waiting on the air support to show up. So as far as spending 2 hours driving across the map, create FOBs for armor units to request air support or launch attacks from. I believe with proper communication, better ground AI, and team work, this would surley flesh out the ground aspect of DCS while gathering another group of sim enthusiast.

I have said it before, DCS is an oustanding sim for any person who desires extreme realism in a combat or non combat role. The implementation of the YAK-52 was outstanding and a good asset to the Vegas map. I encourage more combat roles wether transportation or ground attack with armor. It all has a place on the battlefield and if DCS builds it, people are going to buy it. I would love to see the day an online dynamic campaign is available where ground forces (armor) and air units push a line forward and maintain the ground.

Either way, the future looks bright for DCS and its followers. I have all faith they will do whats best for us and hope eventually we see their amazing work spread into tanks.

Make it so a player can go directly into a ground unit like you can a airplane. Instead of having to haul the parts and build the ground unit.

I think tanks are a great idea. I do not really go with the theory of tanks being non functional due to the pilots tearing them up. As stated, proper use of cover, better AI with AA and AAA will help flesh out a tank or armor module. There is still a big following of tank simmers out there waiting for this day to come. Steel Beasts is good but outdated similar to the Falcon sim, yet still has loyal followers.

 

I believe with the new tech DCS has implemented along with the various maps, it would be great to introduce more realistic mobile units. The middle east map and Normandy would be a good test bed for this. I know CA needs to be updated, but this could be part of that process. There are a lot of armor units that would be fun to use in the WW2 setting.

 

As far as staging goes, many ground units are forward deployed ahead of our aircraft in real world environments. In fact most the time its the ground units waiting on the air support to show up. So as far as spending 2 hours driving across the map, create FOBs for armor units to request air support or launch attacks from. I believe with proper communication, better ground AI, and team work, this would surley flesh out the ground aspect of DCS while gathering another group of sim enthusiast.

 

I have said it before, DCS is an oustanding sim for any person who desires extreme realism in a combat or non combat role. The implementation of the YAK-52 was outstanding and a good asset to the Vegas map. I encourage more combat roles wether transportation or ground attack with armor. It all has a place on the battlefield and if DCS builds it, people are going to buy it. I would love to see the day an online dynamic campaign is available where ground forces (armor) and air units push a line forward and maintain the ground.

 

Either way, the future looks bright for DCS and its followers. I have all faith they will do whats best for us and hope eventually we see their amazing work spread into tanks.

i think so too +1

I personally would love to see full-fidelity ground vehicle modules for DCS, provided they aren't classified and can be procured relatively quickly. Because of this I think it best to focus on vehicles that are no later than the cold war say from the 1930s (for WW2) to say the mid-1980s maybe some wiggle room depending on capability or how likely there are to be classified information that can't be reasonably approximated.

For ground vehicle modules to become a thing though we still need to see a few things added to DCS to facilitate them for example:

• Proper implementation of vehicle physics (suspension, neutral steering, amphibious capabilities etc)
  
• Proper implementation of FCS systems (stabilisers, radar gun-laying, firing modes of missiles where applicable)
  
• Proper implementation of vehicle sights, periscopes and RADARs
  
• Implementation of vehicle exterior lights (including searchlights for applicable vehicles) and animations.
  
• Realistic sounds
  
• More shell types where applicable, as well as proper implementation of ammunition types where applicable.
  
• Damage model improvements (armour, ricochet and component damage).
  

Some ideas for tanks and variants just to start us off with potential candidates, personally I think it best to start with cold-war MBTs, but hopefully in the future we'll see some full-fidelity self-propelled, towed and semi-mobile air-defence systems and RADARs. Maybe beyond that light tanks/tankettes, SPGs, APCs, IFVs, ARVs, ATGM carriers, armoured cars and maybe even engineering vehicles such as recovery vehicles, bridgelayers etc.

• M60A1 (AOS, RISE, RISE-P)
  
• M1 Abrams
  
• FV4021 Chieftain (Mk.3, Mk.5, Mk.10, Mk.11)
  
• FV4030/4 Challenger 1 (Mk.2, Mk.3, Mk.4)
  
• Leopard 1 (Anything but preferably 1A5, maybe even a Canadian C1/C2 version)
  
• Leopard 2 (2A1, but could go as far as 2A4)
  
• AMX-30 (preferably B, B2 or maybe B2 BRENUS)
  
• Stridsvagn 103 (B, C)
  
• Merkava (1, 2 or even 3)
  
• TAM
  
• Type 61
  
• Type 74
  
• T-55 (A, M, AK, MK)
  
• T-62 (Obr.1960-1975, K, M, MK)
  
• T-64 (A, AK, AV, B, BK, BV)
  
• T-72 (A, AK, AV, B, BA, BK)
  
• T-80 (A, B, BV, U)
  

Past that, light/amphibous tanks, SPGs, ATGM carriers, AFVs etc.

As for A/C oblitering tanks, this is true, but can be solved with mission design just sayin..