What is the future of CA?

I'd have to dig, but I believe this was over two years ago. Is this something that's legitimately still in the works or just another forgotten project?

 

Also - Eagle Dynamics turned down eSim (Steel Beasts) request to produce a module. I'm not sure why - I'm not asking, it's not my place - but I'll never understand.

+1

It would have been something if the two had co-operated on such a project

Literally the best of both worlds.

I like CA for what it is but it could be so much more.

Posted November 4, 2014

I wouldn't go so far to say that ED top management officially rejected the idea, but at least my pitch never went anywhere. This is a bit of a shame to the extent that we could have opened a common military market with a spin-off into the regular game world.

But of course they retain more creative freedom that way, and I respect that. Who knows. Under the right conditions they might still reconsider their options.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/8895-steel-beasts-and-esim-working-with-dcs/?do=findComment&comment=129521

Also says in that very thread:

In summary, I don't want to create the impression that it's all easy going if only ED would come to their senses.

Even if you can bypass a lot of work with the help of federating simulations via "network magic" there are still other issues that must be addressed, and each of them has the potential to be a show stopper (to the extent that it it might not perform well, or be otherwise unsatisfactory to the end user). But that's something you can find out only if you start a thorough and serious analysis, and maybe simply try out a few things to see how they work out.

Probably it is just something that they don't want to commit to, at least at this time. And they have historically been very dismissive of ventures where they would have to relinquish even some of their creative control of core assets. Which is their prerogative.

eSim posted it on their forums two years ago.

I was not aware of that, thanks. This thread is really interessting. I had no idea, that there are (or were) actual attempts for a cooperation of some kind between DCS and SB. It's a real shame that it didn't suceed (so far). :(

The future of CA change with ED get ability to build pilot-able cockpits in vehicles (and expected ship), but as SiThSpAwN talk, DCS: W maps has not mature to build that "functionality", expected see some improvement on that branch with ED improve future Mesh technology (T-5) on maps. Surely a ground module can be more feasible with them and other feature improvements.

Also says in that very thread:

And they have historically been very dismissive of ventures where they would have to relinquish even some of their creative control of core assets. Which is their prerogative.

Actually I get this. Two different creative visions often lead to nobody really in control. It might seem like having two people trying to drive the bus.

I was not aware of that, thanks. This thread is really interessting. I had no idea, that there are (or were) actual attempts for a cooperation of some kind between DCS and SB. It's a real shame that it didn't suceed (so far). :(

The best can do ED is Keep away from eSim team. Very Different mentality.

The future of CA change with ED get ability to build pilot-able cockpits in vehicles (and expected ship), but as SiThSpAwN talk, DCS: W maps has not mature to build that "functionality", expected see some improvement on that branch with ED improve future Mesh technology (T-5) on maps. Surely a ground module can be more feasible with them and other feature improvements.

Are we talking about the T5 already? wow

Yeah, i'm not sure how it will impact other maps or the combined arms module but it has been stated that the Straight Of Hormuz will be using T5 technology.

We have also been working on the DCS: Strait of Hormuz Map with the primary focus on F/A-18C operations. For this release we are working on our new T5 dynamic mesh terrain technology that we believe will bring this map a new dimension in quality and detail.

I'm not sure when that was and I can't find it anymore. Maybe it got deleted? I also don't know if it is still in the works or if it ever has been. I just know Wags asked for M1 docs at one point

There was a video of m1a1 new model with acceleration and breaking, firing and so. It has been removed since then.

It was nice how suspension etc worked.

The best can do ED is Keep away from eSim team. Very Different mentality.

As i see, problem isnt the teams, it is the theme.

A vehicle simulator is far more slow paced than a flight simulator.

A flight simulation can be 1-3h operation to take-off, fly to operation area, patrol 30min and then return.

With a ground vehicle you just drive,wait and observe and when something happens it is likely over in couple seconds.

The pilots has much more to do all the time, as you cant just sit and wait something to happen.

That is same problem why ARMA cant be taken in, as players rarely has the time or patience to work with the reality of slow paced action.

Wags talk about a "IF" DCS level tanks and IFVS on the VR-Vive video.

Wags talk about a "IF" DCS level tanks and IFVS on the VR-Vive video.

 

Where, in that hour long video does he talk about it?

Wags talks about adding areas to the NTTR and the NTC, then goes on to briefly mention potential MBT and IFV modules.

Posted November 4, 2014

 

 

 

http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/8895-steel-beasts-and-esim-working-with-dcs/?do=findComment&comment=129521

That's a real shame. ED and 3rd party dev teams have done absolutely amazing work with maps and various aircraft - obviously these are their core competencies. Esim on the other hand have done what is at this point by far the most realistic tank & armoured warfare sim that's ever been available, very much the "DCS Ground Warfare" game.

From a lay person's perspective it'd be amazing to see ED sub-contract ground warfare development to Esim. Make Esim '2nd party' developers. ED could develop maps and then leave Esim to develop modules, or a module, for ground / armoured warfare.

Given that both DCS World and Steel Beasts are grounded in the same hard-core realism, subcontracting ground warfare to Esim would seem like a very good fit for ED's concept for DCS world.

I really hope this decision gets revisited in the future, good things would come of it.

Make Esim '2nd party' developers. ED could develop maps and then leave Esim to develop modules, or a module, for ground / armoured warfare.

I'd say armored warfare only - eSim is not big into the infantry stuff - which is MUCH needed if we're talking about ground warfare. It's not all about tanks.

Players need to be able to directly control infantry forces - aim, shoot, move, etc infantry units. Not at the ArmA-level of detail, but something simple to add functionality.

Players need to be able to directly control infantry forces - aim, shoot, move, etc infantry units. Not at the ArmA-level of detail, but something simple to add functionality.

Wouldn't that change the ESRB rating of the game? Right now it is rated for T(13+), but after including infantry it would definitely be moved up to M(18+). Not sure how that would impact sales and other legal stuff.

I'd say armored warfare only - eSim is not big into the infantry stuff - which is MUCH needed if we're talking about ground warfare. It's not all about tanks.

 

Players need to be able to directly control infantry forces - aim, shoot, move, etc infantry units. Not at the ArmA-level of detail, but something simple to add functionality.

No Need as infantry control would be needed only in squad level. Just control squad at smallest unit size and then individual or platoons of vehicles.

It would be enough to command squad to man an building, choose the attack direction, routes, engagement ranges and angles and then engagement rules like by command or when fired upon.

If Manning a building you can just command to select side/corners and then top/middle/low floor for positions.

Then on forest you choose how deep covers to dig, on what direction and how good protection needed.

There is no need to fire or move or control individual infantry at all.

When you can use a realistic squad/platoon/company/battalion command and functions, you get everything.

A single CA commander can then command large groups of ground troops and make nice ambush or tactical moves.

One player playing individual soldier can't do anything alone in battlefield. So why even try to control such? A RPG soldier does nothing, you need at least a pair or more to destroy a single vehicle.

A individual vehicle does almost nothing either in ground combat.

A steel beasts of designed for small engagement sizes. More realistic than many realise as you rarely have tens of MBT on field, more like a platoon and then others that platoon is protecting.

Like how likely we get a ie. 3x MBT platoons, 9x IFV, 18x APC and load of trucks and battery of SAM and SPAAGS. And all controlled by players individually? Even a one player per squad/platoon is difficult.

But have a 1-3 players for all that? Much more easier task to complete. And then there can be a 3-4 CAS pilots, 5-10 fighter pilots and even a few to fly helicopters to attack or transit.

And that is huge forces to move and work together.

I'd hate to be on foot on a map the size of Caucasus... or even NTTR...

Thats a Long trip holding down the shift button.

we can have 2 different control model, one is commander mod, which can command ground vehicle or infantry platoon. just like rts game.

another one is that work as infantry or vehicle crew, for hardcore simulator fans.

3 or 4 guys in one mbt or ifv, in order to play small size ground battle, much fun.

for example, 2 or 3 guys in t-72, commander(or/ and gunner) and mechanic,

10(or 16) vehicles in one group, that will have 20-30 guys in one platoon.

other group is m1a1 or leopard, also have 2 or 3 (without loader)guys in one vehicle, and totals are 30 ppl. less then 60 guys and that will have a fun battle.

everyone will get their needs.

or only 5 mbt, some aa and apc for company size battle and we may have 1 attack helo as air support. that will need 20 vs 20 ppl to run this game... it's a little difficult to find 40 guys play the mission together...

well, we won't have such many players in server, and the server can not hold such many player, so there will be many limited to simulate the whole battle.

we can have 2 different control model, one is commander mod, which can command ground vehicle or infantry platoon. just like rts game.

another one is that work as infantry or vehicle crew, for hardcore simulator fans.

3 or 4 guys in one mbt or ifv, in order to play small size ground battle, much fun.

for example, 2 or 3 guys in t-72, commander(or/ and gunner) and mechanic,

10(or 16) vehicles in one group, that will have 20-30 guys in one platoon.

other group is m1a1 or leopard, also have 2 or 3 (without loader)guys in one vehicle, and totals are 30 ppl. less then 60 guys and that will have a fun battle.

everyone will get their needs.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Ten ground commanders manage a fight? I think not.

Combined Arms currently supports both RTS and FPS play. However, both are extremely primitive and require much refinement.

I'm not sure why people don't believe in the coexistence of the two play styles for CA. We ALREADY have both. No need to go backwards in development when both can be easily improved .

I play CA as tactical commander much like I used to love to play Jane's Fleet Command. It is like a tactical chess match (one that I am not good at). I agree that it is already quite good in this regard, and it only needs a few rounds of incremental improvements to really make it shine.

That said it is fun to get into the tank or the APC to play some of the ground units that are involved at a critical juncture. Don't need dozens of players online, playing mega tank battles. A good mission can have small micro-conflict set inside a much larger battle on a macro level, where air is called in to support what is happening on the ground. The mission objective is happening there, and it is fun to be where that is happening in first person mode. As decisive as air power is, every war is ultimately won on the ground (that's where we all live at the end of the day), so the overall objective is almost always some function of defending your turf to repel an enemy attack, or to go take over some real estate from enemy. There can be and should be some critical pieces on the ground, such as JTAC and some forward recon guys that can be controlled better by a human than by an AI unit.

The biggest downer is the poor AI behavior of air units when playing CA as a single player. Big disappointment there. Improve that and we have something.

After that, I really think the biggest improvements lie in incorporating some things like Air mobile units and amphibious ops, as well as tactical command and control logic, particularly with air defenses and various types of radars.

Also agree that there should be some command functionality to allow ground troops to enter, occupy and defend buildings.

Are there any bigger plans regarding CA? Where is more realistic radar view, some UI of the vehicle improvements, more plausible key control (steering)?

CA had bigger update very long time ago.

May be some type of statement from ED about what there future intentions are for CA.

Turning CA in to a high fidelity sim or just incremental improvements.