CA 1.5?

As long as both games lack true SMP support it will never work unless Intel releases a 20GHz CPU.

 

The fire going on under the hood should not be underestimated.

 

Lets get EDGE and SMP first to get DCS where it should be as of now and not leave in a 2003 state as of Flanker2.x/LOMAC CPU driving issues.

 

Right now, you can easily overkill any CPU with DCS which is ridiculous. Looking at my Core i7 doing nothing on 4 Cores and 3 do a little bit and 1 Core is exploding.... Not good at all.

 

Get all Cores working and you should see the biggest push forward.

Yeah, thats the same problem with Arma 3 now. People complaining of one core ready to explode and their GPU sitting idle at 30%. DCS looks to have about the same type engine. We really need to move to modern engines.

would people accept platoon size units that would act as 1 object to make it easier for the computer and most of the firing/defending etc...

No, wouldn't make my kind happy. Were looking for FPS.

What's the fun in plinking enemy units that are neatly lined up and merely try to shoot back if they happen to see you?

You mean like now?

I did read while back , ed where planning skeleton animated units,

all takes time I guess.

even if we get ai soldiers for now with decent animations.

Oh yeah, I know. Everything takes time. I just get frustrated. Sorry if I upset anybody. Really looking forward to EDGE and a good terrain / map editor to see what can be done. What all games really need now though is multi-cpu scaling engines. And believe me! ( I do program some ) I do know how hard that is! There is only one compiler out there right now that does it for you automatically and its just in alpha. Its called Parasail. Outerra is about the only engine I've seen claim to be able to multiscale. And of course, ED needs to move everything they can to the GPU which is much more powerful than the CPU as was meant to do the grunt work. Hopefully EDGE was made to do this, seeing as its the new rendering engine.

Wish it includes the uav sim (predator) that I saw on a video recently. Can't find it.

Wish it includes the uav sim (predator) that I saw on a video recently. Can't find it.

Like this?

...take the current map we have now, now make all the buildings in it capable of being entered and used by infantry.... now watch your computer turn into a puddle as it loads that map ;)

I don't think my computer would melt. More likely it would just sit there, blink a few times in shock as it tries to open the map file... then go into a beach ball spinning coma.

40+ all in aircraft though right, you dont have infantry running through buildings, driving tanks, etc in BMS yet do you :) We are talking about more advanced Infantry than what we have now, it would add so much more to the demands on the server, no matter how much they might be hidden from one user, they are still there for the server...

My understanding of the way the ArmA engine works is that the individual units aren't necessarily that computationally intensive themselves. The problem comes when they start shooting. Each projectile has the dynamic forces acting on it recalculated every tick of the simulation. You get 40 infantry units shooting all at once, and suddenly it turns into a huge load on the server. When they're just standing around, or walking about though, it's not that bad. I could be wrong about that though.

Is it true that ED said NO to StealBeasts, seems very ineffective to have CA develop instead, my guess is CA will need 5-10 years from now (with current speed), to even get where Stealbeasts 3 are now.

Just compare this video, and then look at the manual aim in Abrahams in CA, and you understand it can really take a while.

DCS should have done Steel Beasts. Yes, I can see it might take more CPU addon time than just another type of aircraft ( because its a whole new set of equations for ground type forces [right now they just stand there] ) but the sim NEEDS it. And Steel Beasts has just as obsolete an engine as DCS. Seriously, I just keep seeing newer and newer engines popping up that can now model whole GALAXIES ( Novae engine with procedural landscape generation). Outerra's already obsolete ( and it was miles ahead of DCS ). And here we sit with an engine straight from the 1990's. Its only a matter of time before one of these new engines decides to make a realistic flight sim. The only reason I'm here is because DCS has 3 realistic helicopter modules and the A-10C. People like me who are into low level and ground warfare really need a better landscape / engine than DCS ( or even EDGE ) are providing. And that goes for Arma as well (obsolete). The DCS aircraft are well done, but the "world" makes you cringe. I guess its ok if your into the 10K club. You fighter jocks never get low enough to notice anything.

I havent heard anything like that.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1969538&postcount=15

If StealBeasts did western units, I think CA could try do the Russia units in same quality.

Is it true that ED said NO to StealBeasts, seems very ineffective to have CA develop instead, my guess is CA will need 5-10 years from now (with current speed), to even get where Stealbeasts 3 are now.

 

Just compare this video, and then look at the manual aim in Abrahams in CA, and you understand it can really take a while.

all it takes is a third party dcs module with the same level of detail as current dcs aircraft,

all in good time, don't see it being 5 to 10 years to create a detailed tank though.

If the CA 1.5 bring us radar for first Person, infatry tranportation for APC, multi-spectral smoke munitions for armors and some minors bugs fixed. Then we are rock!!

 

currently smoke in the sim but its a very poor looking effect atm, am sure ed will be tweaking improved gun fire and smoke cover for units, but at the same time don't eat frame rates.

And who is that?

If it's ED doing CA, then it's no wonder why we see so limited progress, they have plenty of other projects.

If it's ED doing CA, then it's no wonder why we see so limited progress, they have plenty of other projects.

I really hate to agree with that, but I do. They don't seem to have that much interest in the ground stuff, and the engine is very dated. It seems to me all were getting is whatever military contracts they have. I'm really starting to look at whats coming in the new engines, which look to be decades ahead of what DCS is doing. At first, yeah, we could only get that on smaller maps. But now, it looks like they're doing whole planets (Outerrra), and now these new engines, like Space Engine ( which is aiming for the whole frickin Universe!). And its pretty nice! I may have to go do some begging for sim level stuff on their forums!

I really hate to agree with that, but I do. They don't seem to have that much interest in the ground stuff, and the engine is very dated. It seems to me all were getting is whatever military contracts they have. I'm really starting to look at whats coming in the new engines, which look to be decades ahead of what DCS is doing. At first, yeah, we could only get that on smaller maps. But now, it looks like they're doing whole planets (Outerrra), and now these new engines, like Space Engine ( which is aiming for the whole frickin Universe!). And its pretty nice! I may have to go do some begging for sim level stuff on their forums!

First you complain that the progress of CA is slow because of other Projects, then you complain that the graphics is outdated.

You are aware, that atm those "other projects" are primarily EDGE as the new graphics engine? So, what do you want now exactly?

If it's ED doing CA, then it's no wonder why we see so limited progress, they have plenty of other projects.

The point is we don't know who this guy is. For all it's worth, he could have pulled that out his lower back.

Well - Outerra basically represent the world and their forest, plus a few houses manually placed. That's all. I prefer largely DCS map than Outerra, which is graphically nice, but totally empty of everything.

In DCS, they is towns, they is roads, powergrid, railroad.... All those objects needs to be placed manually. That's very time consuming, but result are far better than procedurally generated maps.

I don't want to go further in the comparison because it's not the subject and it's not authorized here anyway.

The point is : Creating a realistic map takes time. If you take a procedural generated map (like FSX, Outerra, etc... which takes elevation data, biome data, mix everything automatically), you end up with large scale maps, but they aren't as detailed and nice than map made out of sweat and tears. you often end up with repetitive pattern, weird results.... When you manually create a map, you have to place every building. I challenge anyone to do it for the whole earth. It's really more realistic, but it's not an easy task.

The point is we don't know who this guy is. For all it's worth, he could have pulled that out his lower back.

Thats why I asked, if it was true.

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.....