Jump to content

Do you want a tank module for DCS Normandy


Recommended Posts

So personally my thing is flying not tanks, so if it appeared I wouldn't buy it. However, I think it could be fun doing CAS for real human players fighting an actual ground war with other humans ... however, it's not particularly a priority for me. I also think the engine would need quite a lot of work to support it, both in terms of having more detail down low and in terms of supporting much larger numbers of players in multiplayer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

 

This. Exactly this. I would rather see ED flesh out a solid WW2 airpower simulation first, rather than having half-assed orphan modules of everything under the sun, which do not fit together into a coherent and enjoyable whole. If I feel the need for tanker fun, there are other simulations that are far better at it than DCS would be without a MAJOR redesign of just about everything about the ground vehicles and maps.

 

As has already been pointed out before, to make a tank sim truly work (beyond just the button-pushing aspects), you need to have detailed terrain, and enemies that use appropriate tactics. Right now, that doesn't exist in DCS. I'm pretty sure they haven't even nailed down the AI being able to see through trees yet. I also think people are getting hung up on the "detailed simulation" bit. The thing is, tanks are more about tactics than button-pushing... there aren't *that* many buttons to push, many of them are used only rarely to configure the vehicle, and never touched in combat, and overall their impact on the holistic experience is a lot less important than the tactics portion. Having a perfectly-simulated tank in a poorly-simulated virtual environment would be boring.

 

Would it be nice if DCS could do it? Sure. Will it happen anytime soon? I doubt it. (or more accurately, maybe *could* make a foolish decision to market a poorly-supported orphan module of a tank in a sterile tactical environment, but I can't see it being any fun!)


Edited by OutOnTheOP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
I would rather see ED flesh out a solid WW2 airpower simulation first, rather than having half-assed orphan modules of everything under the sun, which do not fit together into a coherent and enjoyable whole.

 

Agree :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent idea, sounds great. I would buy for sure. I prefer the level of simulation to be around the Flaming Cliffs standard. That provides adequate detail. In fact a pack that provided a number of tanks at a medium simulation level would be awesome if it also had single player campaigns/missions. Look forward to its release.

i9-9900KS, 32GB DDR4, RTX2080Ti, 55" QLED, HP Reverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not until we have everything done properly for the planes and Normandy map. Then yeah why not :thumbup:

 

exactly; agree:thumbup:

i5 4590k@3.5GHz, windows 10 pro, 2TB, 250GB sata, 16gb, Asus Z97 board, GTX 980ti oc, BEN Q XR3501 monitor, corsair 850w psu, TM Warthog, Saitek pedals, Trackir5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

My guess is that some few would love to see a good tank sim within DCS, and I also agree that the final frontier for DCS should be Air, Land and Sea as advertised. Are we ready for all of that? Not yet.

 

As I see it the main issue for most dev´s today is performance, and that takes out alot of man-power resources, as well as PC performance resources in the "open world" enviorment that some games/sims are creating. It just streess the hell out of your PC, no matter how high-end is your PC, thus making it dificult to manage in a multiplayer enviorment. All this at the moment has no regard to whether it´s air, land or sea, the effect is the same, and where it is more noticeable is in MP

 

I don´t know if this would work out but, as in other sim resource hog´s to reduce resources you literally disactivate the no fly zone´s out of your sim, or as in the case of Steel Beast you pick the area of warfare, let´s say 20 square km. so to reduce performance impact on both ends, be it solo, or multiplayer. At the moment we have the whole Caucasus map loading up on each mission we play, when most times we don´t need the whole map, and all that is included with the map. Yes I know, thats why we have Nevada as a test bed.

 

If the performance issue is somwhat better sorted, this would eliminate alot of extra future planning and would relief 3rd party dev´s as well as DCS itself. Then maybe it would be easier/faster to develop more modules.

 

There is alot of people who are used to fiering at AI ground objects/targets, specialy if you followed ED from it´s beginings and that´s basicaly what you do, but I do see alot of atraction with the idea that the AI object/target could be a human player, and not only a in the air human player.

 

Regarding terrain/map, well we already have fricction contact and CA can move around some what realistic on the map, and if Dovetail´s TS 2016 can pull off friction on there stock loco´s which really suck, then I would dare say it´s not that dificult to do in DCS at the state it is. TS2016 is cool if you buy the 3rd party Pro loco´s

 

I agree there´s alot of work to be done, but yes I would like a good tank module, as well as a good sub module like Dangerous Waters or Silent Hunter :D

 

The satisfaction of nocking out a human player can not be paid with a Visa :D

 

 

 

Just my 2 gears.

 

Care,

 

Red


Edited by red2112

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think for what it's worth if this was to be a consideration then it would be worthwhile the devs. creating a couple of tanks and having a dedicated server JUST for tanks. Then, if successful there may be possible moves to integrate them into a battlefield environment with aircraft too.

 

First thing to see though would be how the net traffic handles tanks in multi-tank environment with effects and then if proven, move to inclusion in DCS with aircraft?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, this is not worth even talking about until we have a large stable of aircraft and the map then perhaps this conversation could be brought up, until then they should not look at this.

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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