Do you want a tank module for DCS Normandy - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-24-2016, 05:55 AM   #1
robert.clark251
Member
 
robert.clark251's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 262
Default Do you want a tank module for DCS Normandy

I am writing this post to get the communities thoughts on a DCS level tank module. Looking at WW2 era to begin with US/German, possibly Russian later on down the road.

Before the hate train starts rolling, I am aware of the 2.0 engine, weather or not the terrain would be sufficient for tank battles ect.... I have faith these are issues that can and will be ironed out in the future. As we have already seen, Nevada is shaping up pretty nice. I want you guys to look at the overall picture and get your thoughts on bringing another fundamental component to the WW2 battlefield.

It is my belief there are many different simmers out there. Next to aviation, it has been a long time coming for someone to pick the ball up on Armor sims. Yes, we all know about Steel Beasts and I do not want to turn this into a "let them keep the tank sim" forum. I believe it can and will be done better at some point in DCS. The question is, is the desire their from the community.

Lets hypothetically say an attempt is being made to get a team together. Would you guys be interested in a Sherman and or Panzer/Tiger module? And yes, everything would be fully functional fully operational just like the aircraft.

Please let me be clear, nothing has been made, is in the process of being made, or even been run by Eagle Dynamics/Devs. I just want feedback to see if a run was made at this, would the hype follow.

And by the way, I have access to this

Last edited by robert.clark251; 05-24-2016 at 06:20 AM.
robert.clark251 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2016, 07:44 AM   #2
Charly_Owl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Montreal (QC), Canada
Posts: 1,680
Default

My personal thoughts on the matter, for what it's worth:

DCS is a study sim that appeals to a very specific kind of person: someone who wants to learn. I love to learn about everything: military aircraft, civilian aircraft, tanks, ships, submarines, SAM sites, radar stations, you name it. If DCS could do it all to a high level of realism, I'd gladly pay for it. The community's needs are as varied as each man: following this train of thought, it is clear that our "needs" are infinite. However, the developers' resources are finite.

Let's be real. At the moment, the vast majority of people want three things: new maps, new aircraft, and era-specific ground and air AI units to create an immersive combat environment. These three things are what I'm dying for, and they're mostly what generates hundreds of pages of heated debates and discussion on the forums.

Of course, I'd love a tank. Who wouldn't? But I see resources being spent doing a tank I might like as resources being taken away from other projects about planes I am sure I would definitely love to fly. If I have a choice between a tank and a plane, or a tank and a new map, or a tank and a new set of AI units for a Korean or a Vietnam war... the tank will lose this "battle of needs" every time. I see a tank project as a "nice to have", but not as a "must have" like these three things I mentioned earlier. Maybe it's just me being pessimistic, but I can't help but think that developing something to the detriment of stuff that we desperately need is not an efficient way of expanding the world of DCS.

So, speaking for myself, as much as I commend an effort to create "something new", I would say "pass".
Charly_Owl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2016, 08:32 AM   #3
Captain Orso
Senior Member
 
Captain Orso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,291
Default

I would like to see the Normandy map include at least fairly, realistically operating ground units. If it works along the lines of the Combined Arms, fine. If is takes too large of a portion of the server's processing power, no.

I can't imagine that the game engine could handle a flight simulation parallel to a highly realistic ground combat simulation with possibly hundreds of thousands of objects acting on the ground at one time.

I'm still wondering what ED is going to do with it as it is. On and after 6 June 1944 there will be masses of 'units'--what ever that will mean for the simulation--on the map at any one time, if they are included in a mission. During WW-II there were still distinct front lines, especially in Normandy. A large portion of these will be fairly well hidden from the sky, because they were already trying to hide from each other on the ground. Will ED put them on the map anyway? Will most of them be more like static objects? Will there be literally thousands of destrucable objects on the map at once? Moving and fighting each other all at once? My brain is melting
__________________
When you hit the wrong button on take-off


System Specs.
Spoiler:
System board ... MSI X99A GAMING 9 ACK
CPU ............ Intel Core i7-5820K @ 3800MHz per OC Genie
CPU cooling .... Noctua NH-D15
Memory ......... 16GB DDR4-3000 G.Skill Ripjaw
PSU ............ Corsair AX860i PSU
Graphics card .. Zotac Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Amp! Extreme
System disk .... SanDisk Extreme PRO 480GB SSD
Monitor ........ ASUS MG279Q, 27"
VR ............. Oculus Rift CV1
Captain Orso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2016, 09:00 AM   #4
Rangi
Senior Member
 
Rangi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Alice Springs, AU
Posts: 1,942
Default

I think it would be a great idea.
__________________
PC:
Spoiler:
6600K @ 4.5 GHz, 12GB RAM, GTX 970, 32" 2K monitor.
Rangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2016, 09:32 AM   #5
Dudikoff
Senior Member
 
Dudikoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Croatia / Lebanon
Posts: 2,071
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charly_Owl View Post
Let's be real. At the moment, the vast majority of people want three things: new maps, new aircraft, and era-specific ground and air AI units to create an immersive combat environment. Of course, I'd love a tank. Who wouldn't? But I see resources being spent doing a tank I might like as resources being taken away from other projects about planes I am sure I would definitely love to fly.
I don't see why would developing a ground vehicle automatically mean taking away resources from development of a new aircraft? The OP is not asking us to choose between a plane or a tank. Not all developers can or want to develop aircraft to DCS standards.

Plus, playable tanks require things to shoot at and fight with (so, additional ground units are a given) plus better vehicle AI and infantry modeling so if anything, it would require bringing wider improvements to the base game.
__________________
i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1 btn 2 axis gameport joystick, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

DISCLAIMER: My posts are absolutely useless. Just passing time till DCS: F-14..

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Last edited by Dudikoff; 05-24-2016 at 09:52 AM.
Dudikoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2016, 09:33 AM   #6
WinterH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,605
Default

I do not see CA as a simulator, and I really don't think it is intented that way either. While it would be cool, very cool indeed, resources are finite, and there are many other things to introduce / fix before such an adventure.

Don't get me wrong, I like tanks a lot, especially the WW II ones.

But a line needs to be drawn somewhere unfortunately. As it is, DCS is good at doing flight dynamics. But it has a lot to do regarding combat modeling like fixing damage system, retouching ballistics of some of the weapons etc. Then there is whole stability issues, especially with multiplayer. Even combined arms can cause stability issues in it's current state.

As a dream, it sounds lovely, but there are many important issues to adress with ED's finite sources, one can branch out only so much without getting all over the place.

Edit : forgot about whole lack of ground combat AI. Ground vehicles are all seeing, and lack even the simples tactical ability. They just see you and snipe you, while sitting out on the open unless they have a way point. There is lots to fix before such a thing can be enjoyable in DCS.
__________________
Modules:
MiG-21Bis, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, P-51D, F-86F, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Hawk T1A, C-101, FC3, A-10C, CA, Mirage 2000C, Gazelle, L-39, MiG-15Bis, F-5E, AJS 37 Viggen, Yak-52

Honorable Mention Mods:
Community A-4E and MB-339 mods
WinterH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2016, 09:33 AM   #7
Kurfürst
Member
 
Kurfürst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 792
Default

I would love tanks and I believe you could do some very good matches even in a Normandy setting (for example, Cromwell/Sherman/Pz IV, or M18 Hellcat / Panther), but at the same time, I feel its just unnecessary, since it would not add much to the sim. What would tanks do in the first place? Just fight other tanks and occasionally get bombed down? If you want more you would need a lot of AI objects to shoot at/from as well, like AT guns, Flak guns, pillboxes, trucks, infantry (problematic in itself due to legal and practical issues, for example an absurdly high tank:infantry ratio etc. If you want to do a deep, DCS-level simulation, you will also need to model rather complex tank systems.

Or would they have some kind of mission (like capturing airfields in a mini server war)? That would need mechanics, too. Also there are, thankfully a lot of good tank product that do all this rather well.So I believe while the idea is intriguing, it would seem to be impractical, unless a LOT of work is put into the thing, which means both that its both a separate purchasable module (and I am not sure of the financial viability of that) and that it would take away from the work being done on planes. Which takes quite a lot, if you consider how long it takes from beta status to the final release.
__________________
www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site

Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse!
-Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment
The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.
Kurfürst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2016, 11:35 AM   #8
MAD-MM
Member
 
MAD-MM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 921
Default

Would be nice addition, love the Panther V (tiger is ugly square box) but DCS level Tank would would need long time they need rescoures to build them.
Rather like as said would be in first line bring finaly Normandy map and other sim stuff that is still meiles away. I think wagg's search for M1 abrahams dokuments some time ago.
MAD-MM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2016, 11:47 AM   #9
Solty
Senior Member
 
Solty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 1,684
Default

As much as I love tanks and can talk about different types all night, I would rather see more aircraft models added. B25 is far more important than M4A3 (W)76
__________________
In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.
My channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyA..._Sqdc0IKJuv6dA
Solty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2016, 04:09 PM   #10
Charly_Owl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Montreal (QC), Canada
Posts: 1,680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudikoff View Post
I don't see why would developing a ground vehicle automatically mean taking away resources from development of a new aircraft? The OP is not asking us to choose between a plane or a tank. Not all developers can or want to develop aircraft to DCS standards.

Plus, playable tanks require things to shoot at and fight with (so, additional ground units are a given) plus better vehicle AI and infantry modeling so if anything, it would require bringing wider improvements to the base game.
Combined Arms is currently the extent of DCS "tank simulation", which is insufficient for a "DCS-level" tank simulation model. A third party could develop their own module, but ED will have to integrate the module to the main DCS World trunk, which means
a) developing tank-specific new features within the codebase
b) rework all current maps (Georgia and NTTR) to set up more advanced terrain properties for ground units
c) integrating a new ground-based collision and physics model
d) updating their SDK to create other tank modules for other potential 3rd parties

So yes, resources will be taken "away" in the sense that ED coders can't do everything at once. Work is not only performed from the 3rd Party side, it also performed by the ED for integration.

Last edited by Charly_Owl; 05-24-2016 at 04:33 PM.
Charly_Owl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:44 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.