Jump to content

What is the future of CA?


Recommended Posts

At the moment it seems their focus is on getting 2.5 out, and most of the bugs related to that...

 

I think CA never really took off, pardon the pun, so they shifted focus elsewhere...

 

I do, however, think that if CA had a better gui, and was a bit more fleshed out.... also didn't feel so tacked on, it would be awesome...

My youtube channel Remember: the fun is in the fight, not the kill, so say NO! to the AIM-120.

System specs:ROG Maximus XI Hero, Intel I9 9900K, 32GB 3200MHz ram, EVGA 1080ti FTW3, Samsung 970 EVO 1TB NVME, 27" Samsung SA350 1080p, 27" BenQ GW2765HT 1440p, ASUS ROG PG278Q 1440p G-SYNC

Controls: Saitekt rudder pedals,Virpil MongoosT50 throttle, warBRD base, CM2 stick, TrackIR 5+pro clip, WMR VR headset.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think there is a major overhaul for CA in the works. I think Wags mentioned that on one or two occasions.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a major overhaul for CA in the works. I think Wags mentioned that on one or two occasions.

 

Ah yes, of course. I was waiting for someone to come by and say this. It gets tossed around somewhat frequently around here.

 

Wags spent five seconds talking about ground vehicles in a video - CA must be getting an overhaul! :megalol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are a bit busy right now, I think we can all agree. I don't think it isn't that CA isn't a priority or that it is not a huge success, but they have to focus on some areas to keep pushing the overall vision/effort/product line forward.

 

IMHO, I would say the biggest thing for them was getting some third party aircraft developers up and running. Seems we have one or two dev groups now that can and have produced something tangible (other than discussion threads), so they have made that milestone. Now we have NTTR and two versions of the sim are co-existing. So I have to believe that getting both theatres up to speed with the new technology is the main focus now for ED. Then adding new theatres like Straits of Hormuz, and Normandy and so forth.

 

At some point they need to lay the groundwork for third party devs to create new theaters. Can't do that without having all the technology and underpinnings in place. Maybe that effort is somehow linked to some plans for incremental improvements for CA, who can say at this point?

 

Same probably goes for CA. Even if they do plan this overhaul, I would guess that it would have to come a bit later after we have all the theatres brought up to current version.


Edited by Ripcord

[sIGPIC]sigpic65507_1.gif[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wags spent five seconds talking about ground vehicles in a video - CA must be getting an overhaul! :megalol:

 

Pretty sure he also talked about naval ops somewhere in one of those snippets of online interviews.

 

But there is reason why his forum signatures states everything is subject to change!

 

I think the real message is that a lot of things are possible (not that they are all planned and locked in with an operating budget and a target release date).

[sIGPIC]sigpic65507_1.gif[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Being a fan as some of you above of Fleet Command and other RTS type sims/games I really didn´t get into CA as up to recently. Been with ED since the Flanker day´s.

 

I think CA has a bit of both worlds (RTS/FPS), and that is what makes it atractive, aside from the addition of flight modules added to the overall gameplay which makes it even more interesting.

 

Compared to other modules, you might say´s it´s not as mature, but nevertheless it´s a pice to the DCS world that offers something different.

 

As is, I would like a better damage module that takes into account armor soft spots regarding HP, with added internal module damage. Some what as "Armored Warfare" has done on there open beta. Besides that, I don´t think you need more controles in FPV, but yes a general improvement on the CMDR side of things. Oh and almost forgot, a better map with more terrain elevation markers. (every 20mts.)

 

The AI could do a better job Indeed. Take for example "Combat Mission Black Sea" from Battlefront, or "Flashpoint Campaigns Red Storm" from OnTarget Simulations, both have a worked AI in a RTS enviorment as a commander. In another concept but similar to CA, you also have "Steel Armor Blaze of War" from Graviteam, in which you also have both RTS and FPV.

 

Yes, it would be great to have dedicated modules in CA, be it from eSims or not. It´s cool as it is and of course it could be better, but I would take notes as how other devs are doing things on where ED is missing first.

 

But again, who knows in what direction they are going...


Edited by red2112
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides that, I don´t think you need more controles in FPV, but yes a general improvement on the CMDR side of things. Oh and almost forgot, a better map with more terrain elevation markers. (every 20mts.)

 

There were interesting hints appoint l about the updated Caucasus map for 2.5 by Wags in his first F-5E II Tiger navigation preview....

 

Just in first 7 minutes so not long to watch whole thing.

 

Like how the team went little dream side, and that to grow the update size and time it takes.

  • Like 1

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second the RTS aspect of CA, I think that has been underestimated by many who see no reason to purchase CA.

 

If we could set up a battlefield, set some strategic goals, take command on one side, let the AI command the other. Co-ordinate ground forces. Set up air packages (just needs a re-arm, re-fuel option which it didn't have last time I looked) We've pretty much got the start of a semi-dynamic campaign. If we could save the state of the map at the end of a mission and be able to task more, perfect.

 

As it is, I was tossing around the idea of running an MP instance within a VM that you could pause when you're done and resume when you came back.

 

I believe the logistics system was fleshed out quite a few patches ago so a conflict of attrition would be possible. CA could open up some exciting avenues for SP and MP force on force. Only 2 players on a server? Doesn't matter if you can schedule your own flights with mission goals!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly. I love CA. If ED make two improvements I feel are really important.

 

The multiplayer performance improvements (now we get a lot of server crashes cuz CA)

Units can't see anymore through trees.

 

Only this two things and we get on business for sure.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as a developer, you dont ever do a bunch of changes all at once. it makes it impossible to see where a new problem may have come from. you 'lock it down' as fully tested and functional, and then as you build new stuff, you can be mostly confident that it was your new code that broke it. we call them 'sprints' and like 'story archs' and all kinds of abstract BS for non-tech people to understand, but in the end, its really just about being smart about how you fix things, and not letting the business-people or customers drive your release schedule, because they always want everything now, and always will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Agree with CA being less than half baked. More like a whimsical thought.

 

We need realistic modules, as good as the A-10C and Shark. I'd pay the same price as an aircraft module for one, if it was done to complete realism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seem to be two schools of thought about what Combined Arms "should" be:

 

- Move in the Steel Beasts direction and grow to be a proper ground unit simulator or;

- A commander/JTAC style RTS with an improved tactical interface.

 

I believe CA has huge potential but right now it is in the middle ground doing neither job particularly well (yet). Personally, I am strongly in favour of a fleshed out commander/JTAC role.

 

I would go so far as to suggest that any manual control of units beyond observing/marking a target is unnecessary. Directing units should be via command, not direct control.

 

IMHO, the view from a ground unit should serve a similar function as the existing F6 released weapon view. Collectively, the entire combined force is your "vehicle" and each unit merely a weapon on that "vehicle".

 

As pilots, we don't take control of our weapons and manually "drive" them to the target, we leave that to the guidance system. Each non-CA player (or AI) is the "guidance system" of their aircraft; "fired", as it were, by the commander. If you're the commander, BE the commander. Don't micro manage.

 

That would be my design philosophy anyway.

 

With the exception of spotting/designating targets all the CA action should take place on the tactical map. If ED wants to move into DCS-level ground unit simulation, fair enough. But leave that for specific modules like the aircraft.

 

Ironically, even as arcadey as Battlefield is, it's commander mode doesn't let you jump into first person, it focuses solely on high-level tactics. I believe Combined Arms should be similar except with the depth that we've come to expect from DCS.

 

My advice: Adopt a purely strategic/tactical design for Combined Arms and stick with it. Don't water down the experience with a light/arcade FPS mode thrown in the mix. Save the first person experience for full DCS quality sim modules.

 

As always, just my 2¢


Edited by JLX
typo

3570K w/ 16GB, 1070 w/ 8GB @ 1440p, VKB Gunfighter/MCG-Pro & T-Rudder Mk.IV, CH ProThrottle, TrackIR 5, HTC Vive, UniversRadio, VoiceAttack, TacView Pro, DCS Menu Nav

F/A-18C, F-5E, F-86F, A-10C, AV-8B, AJS-37, MiG-21bis, MiG-15bis, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Ka-50, SA342, P-51D, Spitfire Mk.IX, Bf109, Fw190, FC3, CA, Persian Gulf, NTTR, Normandy, WW2 Assets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing CA from only a RTS/Commander perspective would be extremely boring. I've already tried it in some of my larger scenarios. Issue waypoints, sit, wait....boooooring!

 

There is no reason why ED has to remove existing first person functionality to achieve a desirable goal with CA.

 

When it comes to FPS aspects, we dont need DCS to become Steel Beasts. Steel Beasts is designed as an armored crewman training tool for professional armies. I dont think DCS will ever get the same fidelity in its armored game - and thats OK because the enjoyment behind DCS is the COMBINED ARMS aspect that it offers - players can crew tanks, planes, and helicopters within a large game world - something that Steel Beasts will never achieve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing CA from only a RTS/Commander perspective would be extremely boring. I've already tried it in some of my larger scenarios. Issue waypoints, sit, wait....boooooring!

Not if the "RTS" aspect is properly done, with proper damage model including penetration, improved user interface and challenging AI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One day I would like to try RTS/Commander against an opponent playing the other side as RTS commander.

 

Air AI is still really weak, as it stands now in its current state, but if that could be improved, this would be really something like playing a modern tactical warfare version of chess/checkers -- damn cool!

[sIGPIC]sigpic65507_1.gif[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since were most likely not getting playable infantry.I would like to suggest in the future for CA is that you could give commands to the AI infantry to hold their postion or engage the enemy,and to command them to move them into certain areas to capture a town or sections so it could help determine the outcome of the battle.It's similar to the old Ghost Recon games i used to play on Xbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One day I would like to try RTS/Commander against an opponent playing the other side as RTS commander.

 

Air AI is still really weak, as it stands now in its current state, but if that could be improved, this would be really something like playing a modern tactical warfare version of chess/checkers -- damn cool!

 

Hi Ripcord,

 

You can check out a MP server called "Hollo Pointe" runned buy Wreckigncrew. He has two permenant sides of CA on his server. You can play coop or head-to-head.

 

I understand what you mean by modern chess match. Most of us who play RTS wargames see it that way too. You can do the same with CA too. The only problem right now with CA regarding CMDR RTS is the AI LOS (see´s through buildings and tree lines) which can make your life a PITA when trying to play SP missions no mater what skill you set it to.

 

If you like RTS warfare, I suggest you have a look at "Flashpoint Campaigns Red Storm" by Ontarget Simulations, or the "Combat Mission" saga like "CM Black Sea" by Battlefront. These two are among my faves, and can be real hardcore too! You can even play by e-mail like in the old day´s! FCRS is only turned base, but CMBS can be RTS or turned base so you can pick you´r poison :D

 

Either way the CA concept is cool right now if they would only fixed the LOS issue (there are way´s around this). The future of CA could be brighter if the went the SB ProPe route but I find that (if in the roadmap) to be a long way apart from today´s CA. BTW SB is killer!


Edited by red2112

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of CA was to redo the JTAC/FAC training part of the original DCS: A-10C that had to be removed during beta phase for contractual reasons with the US military.

 

It serves as a way to bring Close Air Support into the training environment the original software was derived from.

 

It may be enhanced in the future to something more in the direction of SBpro AND at the same time serve as a RTS element, for simulation of AWACS/JSTARS, a CCC or a simple interface to the wannabe platoon or battailion commander.

 

Whatever improvements we get. I appreciate them.

 

In the end the most important need for CA is an overhaul of AI, Line Of Sight calculations and damage model! And the option to influence ammunition loadout for vehicles. I won't care if it can only be set per vehicle type, rather than individual vehicles...

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that the JTAC part of CA is the best part, but it need´s to be tied together. From what I know and read here on the forums, we only have 1 fully capable airframe in CA for JTAC routine, which is the A-10C. Some airframes have way´s around this handicap like the K-50 and Su25T and that´s about it! So CCT, JTAC or any other way of bomb guiding in DCS is limitid to these/the airframe.

 

If we had more airframes with capable guidenig pods and mssiles, it would make more sence to roll out CCT groups, but as it is, either you go for an A-10, or grab a torch and radio and hope to all above they see you and come in the right direction :D

 

It´s a give or take, but it´s still half the cake.


Edited by red2112

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that the JTAC part of CA is the best part, but it need´s to be tied together. From what I know and read here on the forums, we only have 1 fully capable airframe in CA for JTAC routine, which is the A-10C. Some airframes have way´s around this handicap like the K-50 and Su25T and that´s about it! So CCT, JTAC or any other way of bomb guiding in DCS is limitid to these/the airframe.

 

If we had more airframes with capable guidenig pods and mssiles, it would make more sence to roll out CCT groups, but as it is, either you go for an A-10, or grab a torch and radio and hope to all above they see you and come in the right direction :D

 

It´s a give or take, but it´s still half the cake.

...and the Mirage 2000C if it comes to LGBs, and every other aircraft, when you do “old school“ CAS with FAC or JTAC.

You would be surprised how many aircraft suffer incompatibilities with DataLink technologies and/or radios.

 

In Multiplayer the typical FAC calls in airstrikes with smoke markers and a good old talk on. ;)

 

What would be cool though, to use a DataLink system like the "Rover.

What DCS lacks for the JTAC role, is a way to "control" / request LGB strikes, and other attacks from AI planes with a 9-line...

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and the Mirage 2000C if it comes to LGBs, and every other aircraft, when you do “old school“ CAS with FAC or JTAC.

You would be surprised how many aircraft suffer incompatibilities with DataLink technologies and/or radios.

 

In Multiplayer the typical FAC calls in airstrikes with smoke markers and a good old talk on. ;)

 

What would be cool though, to use a DataLink system like the "Rover.

What DCS lacks for the JTAC role, is a way to "control" / request LGB strikes, and other attacks from AI planes with a 9-line...

 

Yes I forgot the M2000C, wasent to sure about this one yet (beta). Yeah I know you can go old school but that In a way deafets the porpose of some of the more modren airframes in DCS.

 

It´s like, "why do I want a SSN submarine if I can´t launch TLAM´s"? Just get a diesel sub if you can only launch non-guided torps and hope for the best! Sure you can go old school as you say, with something like the F-86/Mig15 but you get this "somethings not right" when you try with a highend airframe, might as well fire tracer´s and follow that.

 

My guess is that it´s difficult to get a balance of firepower, tech and flexbility between both opponents right now in DCS. I would also guess all this is well implemented in there military division, but not so in this PE version. It´s just part of the puzzel right now and we hope the near future brings it all together. Right now we just have "some" parts that work together, for example the K-50 is missing (yelling for a) it´s CCT the K-52, ect...

 

I would be happy if they would fix the AI LOS and mod the damage module for now. Then it´s easyer to wait for the terrain map so we don´t rock on edges like Humpty Dumpty. CA has been in the drawer for a while now, and I think it deserves a bit of attention :music_whistling: It´s been the "black sheep" of the DCS family for some time now, cheapest module ect...


Edited by red2112

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or workaround the issue, we routinely use KA50's and A10C's as CAS platforms utilizing the systems they have. Sure, the A10 is capable of more sophisticated CAS as opposed to the KA50 but it will also accept coordinates.

 

For a dynamic battlefield with moving targets and changing priorities, nothing beats a good talk-on and, if needed, smoke, laser or tracer mark to get the pilot on-target.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Commodore 64 | MOS6510 | VIC-II | SID6581 | DD 1541 | KCS Power Cartridge | 64Kb | 32Kb external | Arcade Turbo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That binoculars/designator could be better though.... :D

You have a point there... even worse in 4k resolution.

And I really hate that the view point changes back to center everytime you switch between gunsight and binos/JTAC view.

  • Like 1

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...