Wonder How it will compare to Steel Beast Pro

Hopefully the Ground part will compare to Steel Beast Pro. If so they will capture a market that has been wanted by any for a long time. Seeing how we can get 32 players and maybe more online I see DCS making a move to what Janes always wanted to do too. This is an exciting time for us Virtual Warfighters.

Do not expect it to compare to SteelBeasts Pro. SBP is an expensive, dedicated product, I'm sure you can understand that a 30-dollar release, being ED's first step into ground combat, is not going to equal the "benchmark" in that regime.

Combined Arms is realistic in some fasions (ballistics etcetera), but "gamey" in others - interface, instrumentation etcetera. You can see the trailer video for gameplay samples:

yFN1iFfvVG8

(Usual caveats of being early code etcetera applies.)

Now, the question of what the future holds is a different matter - perhaps we will one day see SBP-level simulation of ground units in DCS:World, but if that happens it will be later. It's not realistic to expect SBP-level simulation straight off the bat - SBP has taken a LONG time to get where it is now, and the same thing would apply here.

I realize it will not be up to the same level as SBP but it is a start in the right direction. And with the Air assets that can be in game it will make it much better int he end IMO.

I realize it will not be up to the same level as SBP but it is a start in the right direction. And with the Air assets that can be in game it will make it much better int he end IMO.

I agree, Wags said specifically not too long ago not to expect SBP, but agree the air asset makes the game far more three dimensional than SBP (Also a great sim by the way). Just not really to be compared.

The problem with SB is that it has itself in a pigeonhole. While the tank aspect of the game is good, the rest falls pretty flat in terms of a combined arms sim.

On their forums, I've argued for the development of other aspects of the game (infantry, CAS, CCA) with lots of push-back. The attitude being: this is an armor sim, not an infantry sim.

My viewpoint has always been, why limit yourself to an armor sim and not a full combined arms sim. I dont think ArmA does it very well, and whomever can produce something even remotely decent will find itself with a decently-sized community behind it.

I'm really hoping DCS can fill the void of combined arms games.

The problem with SB is that it has itself in a pigeonhole. While the tank aspect of the game is good, the rest falls pretty flat in terms of a combined arms sim.

You said it yourself. SB Pro Pe it is not neithers pretends to be a Combined Arms Sim.

It is an armour simulator and on that field it is not good, it is just the very best.

I am a SB Pro Pe player and while really looking forward for Combined Arms and its future improvements, I know very well that on the armour warfare role it would not even make shadow to SB Pro Pe.

maybe in the future we will be able to have a real Digital battlefield with high accurate air, armour and infantry warfare, but at this moment while DCS is the uncontested king of the air combat sims, Steel Beasts pro pe is the unrivalled Kaiser of the battleground. :D

I actually have a lot of optimism for the development of CA because of the marketing model ED seem to be embracing right now. A Framework licensed to budding developers is just asking for high fidelity unit addons. Imagine DCS: CA (Infantry) expansion. Obviously development speed was always an issue previously, as well as the dimensions of air, but now there are very few limits.

There is every likelihood that in a years time it surpasses genre niche holders and every small step attracts developers from other games (as it is doing already)

Where money is to be made, you will find people working.

Until DCS:CA sells 10 million copies, don't expect SB PE fidelity.

Try to convince eSim to develop a Leopard or M1A2 for DCS:World.

And try to convince BIS to develop DCS:Soldier. Then we're talking some cool shiznit.

There are times where even a steel beast gotta park and call for air support, and Combined Arms got 3 of those air support fly-things. I'd say CA wins, no? :D

That reminds me - somebody make a better model of the Challenger 2, my wee brothers a Tank Commander with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and I want him to play when CA comes out - mainly so I can blow his ass up with Beczl mig 21 :) or the Toad

That reminds me - somebody make a better model of the Challenger 2, my wee brothers a Tank Commander with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and I want him to play when CA comes out - mainly so I can blow his ass up with Beczl mig 21 :) or the Toad

Aah, brotherly love. :D

I agree, Wags said specifically not too long ago not to expect SBP, but agree the air asset makes the game far more three dimensional than SBP (Also a great sim by the way). Just not really to be compared.

Since its ALL the tanks, etc, I wouldn't expect more than Arma quality, but I'm hoping they'll put realistic targeting and ballistics in it. At least make the guns and targeting systems realistic. We can work on realistic engine, control panels, etc. later, in add on modules. DCS:M1A2 TUSK.

Do not expect it to compare to SteelBeasts Pro. SBP is an expensive, dedicated product, I'm sure you can understand that a 30-dollar release, being ED's first step into ground combat, is not going to equal the "benchmark" in that regime.

 

Combined Arms is realistic in some fasions (ballistics etcetera), but "gamey" in others - interface, instrumentation etcetera. You can see the trailer video for gameplay samples:

 

yFN1iFfvVG8

(Usual caveats of being early code etcetera applies.)

 

Now, the question of what the future holds is a different matter - perhaps we will one day see SBP-level simulation of ground units in DCS:World, but if that happens it will be later. It's not realistic to expect SBP-level simulation straight off the bat - SBP has taken a LONG time to get where it is now, and the same thing would apply here.

Which is a fair comment. Although I personally would appreciate more realism in systems etc, I do realise that this will take a bit of time to get there.

This does look like a good starting point though.

Although I personally would appreciate more realism in systems etc, I do realise that this will take a bit of time to get there.

It might take more than just a little time. Keep in mind for how long SB has been in development. Now in addition to that, mind that ED is developing this "on the back" of their flight sim.

It helps to do a reality check from time to time to keep your expectations to a realistic level. :)

realistic armour penetration and damage modelling is the most important imo

We can work on realistic engine, control panels, etc. later, in add on modules. DCS:M1A2 TUSK.

You just made me reminisce an old Microprose favourite :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Tank_Platoon

I spent some time demoing Steel Beasts Pro PE recently. It was really neat, but I'm confident Combined Arms will have one enormous advantage: the AI won't dive straight into a river when I'm not looking. :<

You just made me reminisce an old Microprose favourite :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Tank_Platoon

aww I have very fond memorys of Playing M1 Tank Platoon 2 with my dad. (Don't worry he is not dead.)

We used to have great fun hunting each other on our home LAN.

the sounds in this video give me tingles down the spin.

aww I have very fond memorys of Playing M1 Tank Platoon 2 with my dad. (Don't worry he is not dead.)

We used to have great fun hunting each other on our home LAN.

 

 

 

the sounds in this video give me tingles down the spin.

I still have it, it just won't run on this computer.

I highly doubt ED will put infantry into their World. But in the armor sense, I can deffinatly see CA becoming similar to SB in quality. Specially once third party developers start developing.

I highly doubt ED will put infantry into their World. But in the armor sense, I can deffinatly see CA becoming similar to SB in quality. Specially once third party developers start developing.

infantry are already modelled in the sim russian and US. if u meant human controlled infantry thats a long way away in the future,

sure the dcs engine could handle it np.

I hope that CA will one day have modelled interiors of tanks; something missing from ArmA 2.

I agree with what SithSpawn said, what ED is doing is like microsoft taking their sim FSX and putting realistic combat , drivable tanks and 10x more detail in planes and terrain, but with far less funding than microsoft has.