CA 1.5?

Yeah sure it´s possible : there are tricks to be found server and client sides. Like approximations for AI not involved in a conflict with humans.

Serverside : you have only to have 3d position in this virtual world

Clientside : only have to render visible zone you are in

For both game : they don't code mutithreaded. Only arma can scale a bit more with headless client technology.

Of course it's a challenge : sure it can be done

Did you have a look to Arma3 recently?

There are load of problems on arma for the moment, when there like 200 AI and 20 people online. But the server is able to handle it with an headless client calculating the AI. How much time a dedicated DCS World can handle 50 AI and 10 human driven planes??

I just meant :

Arma will never got the quality of dcs for anything in the air

DCS will never got the quality of arma for anything on the ground

But Arma is the closest to this !!!

For me, the only way to get a win/win can be if they contract each other making an interface for both worlds

Sounds simple on my iphone but impossible because of ways business goes :(

Infantry is needed - but i would see it more on a platoon sized unit.

 

One "entity" in DCS would be an entire platoon, such as game like Combat Mission.

AGREED!! +1 to that… i loved Full Spectrum Warrior and think it would be amazing gameplay in this game.

Nope if it was easy someone would have done it already, and its probably not even a matter of being easy or not, its more of time and current computers ability to run it.... take the current map we have now, now make all the buildings in it capable of being entered and used by infantry.... now watch your computer turn into a puddle as it loads that map ;)

with LODs things like that can be eliminated, airplanes never even need to really load the highest level of detail, and agian im not talking about making the entire map have enterable buildings just a small part, heck even in arma you cant enter every building, and only a part of the map would have higher resolution terrain, whether the network or the server would be able to handle insane amounts of people at affordable levels is another thing.

I do not agree

Complex calculations for your flight : ok

But it's lot of local calculations, the server just manages 3d positions. I mean some stuffs has to be simplified for network traffic ....

I dont think it would be possible right now, we dont have computers that can handle what it would take to run the size of the world we are in and the details of the world ARMA infantry exist in right now...

This, plus right now DCS is running on a ten year old engine. (EDGE only does with terrain right?)

This, plus right now DCS is running on a ten year old engine. (EDGE only does with terrain right?)

EDGE is Everything You see.

Terrain, Sky, Objects, Effects.

EDGE is the Image Rendering Engine.

As long as both games lack true SMP support it will never work unless Intel releases a 20GHz CPU.

The fire going on under the hood should not be underestimated.

Lets get EDGE and SMP first to get DCS where it should be as of now and not leave in a 2003 state as of Flanker2.x/LOMAC CPU driving issues.

Right now, you can easily overkill any CPU with DCS which is ridiculous. Looking at my Core i7 doing nothing on 4 Cores and 3 do a little bit and 1 Core is exploding.... Not good at all.

Get all Cores working and you should see the biggest push forward.

Comparing ARMAIII with DCS is like comparing beans with codfish. Think about the number of objects, to calculate and render, in the ARMAIII~~900 square km or in the DCS ~~140 000 square km (at the present Caucasus terrain). The number of objects, perhaps, can be compared: it's a matter of scale and resolution.

With Levels Of Detail or not, the tesselation capability in the in-development DX11 EDGE engine is an important evolution.

The comparison and the suggestions for them to "merge" are just pants on head retarded.

I really like dumb comment like this one...

Who said merge? We spoke about an interface between both worlds... The way you can enjoy aircraft & infantry @ hardcore levels. Can't we speak? Isn't that the point with a forum?

Sure with people like you, we'll wait a pair of decades for this "merge", like you call that, to happen.

People like you retarded : sure

Take it easy guys, don't make us dish out warnings.

Its not meant to be a comparison to anything really, more so the idea of putting infantry level details into DCS World, and I just dont think we are there yet, to be able to add all that detail, whether some of it could be *hidden* at a certain distance or not...

I believe falcon 4 uses to hide units outside your area of opperations , this is how the could have a large dynamic campaign even way back then.

Thats fine for single player, or a small number of people playing MP, but what if you have 20 guys in a server, some flying some, doing infantry, etc... I dont think its that easy if you are trying to create a large combat simulation with a number of different roles playable by the user. I just dont think that would cut it here, but I am happy to be proven wrong :)

Hm. Maybe it could also work for ground units. Not a big difference if I fly a plane or drive a vehicle in such a enviroment.... in theory. :)

And 40+ clients runs very well in bms on a good server

Thats fine for single player, or a small number of people playing MP, but what if you have 20 guys in a server, some flying some, doing infantry, etc... I dont think its that easy if you are trying to create a large combat simulation with a number of different roles playable by the user. I just dont think that would cut it here, but I am happy to be proven wrong :)

Not to mention Hiding Units wont work for MP, as Most of the MP Sessions I've been in Encompass Large Areas, and Several Different Flights w/ Different Tasking in Different Areas.

You cant hide all the Objects on one side of the Map if you have A-10s on one Side, F-15s on the Other, etc.

would people accept platoon size units that would act as 1 object to make it easier for the computer and most of the firing/defending etc. would be non-simulating in graphical world or it would be minimal at best to reduce CPU overload..but it would be simulated in F10 commander screen and this unit would be able to call in CAS or ask for back up by other squads, or brigades, or ARTY etc..

for me personally i wouldn't mind having more of Tactical platoon sized units that graphically wouldn't act 1-soldier at a time, but more like Total War series platoon or brigade or whatever size.. and then simply APPLY logic in strategy games like (if 1 platoon fights 1 platoon in open field than equation for who looses is this..and t-time needed is such, if 1 platoon faces 2 platoons -one at front, one from flank- then this implies 0.45 more losses to the 1-platoon surrounded and reducing time for finish battle by etc etc..

so in graphical world this wouldnt' look much, but it would still give great depth in tactical and strategic world..

we can have F10 commander with option to move those 50 soldiers platoons that computer would see as 1 unit in traditional sense and only apply (variables as i mentioned before according to the situation at hand) and you would have radio contact if in F-10 or if playing CAS etc..

same can be done with tanks, recon, armored BMP brigades etc..

so we can still limit all of it in 20-40 units and still in reality it would look like anything from 1000 soldiers to 10.000 soldiers..

Yes, in my opnion this is definitvly the way to go.

Combat Mission 1/2/3 had this approach, was working really well.

This would populate map more realistically than the current "2 infantry hold a town".

That strikes me as a horrible compromise and complete immersion killer for anything other than the strategic command view.

Whilst the strategic elements are desirable, nerfing the 3D world (where most people will be playing in a multiplayer game) is a very poor idea. To take a couple of examples, if I'm shooting at a convoy from my KA-50, the units should scatter/react in a non scripted fashion. If they just sit there (or react into the same pattern they always do), it's quite a big immersion killer. I might as well be shooting at static targets.

The same happens if I'm playing as a tank. If my platoon (for example) is in a turret down battle position on a ridgeline, if all tanks are moving as one, I can't move one tank forward to hull down in order to fire, without the whole platoon moving forward with me, and if the battle position isn't exactly the same shape as the formation (e.g. if there is a slight curve), I have to choose between using a line and exposing part of my platoon at all times, or a wedge and having to move the whole platoon too far forwards for the flank units to fire.

As soon as you introduce the ability to target individual vehicles, you either have to completely prevent or restrictively script every movement of an individual vehicle, so that any client can derive where the vehicles are, or transmit data about the status of each one, at which point you are back to square one.

In isolation, if played alone, platoon/squad level units work fine, but this isn't a solely strategy game, the interaction with the wider DCS 3D world is what makes it worthwhile, and any trade offs that fundamentally compromise the 3D world are going to be unacceptable to a lot of players (otherwise you might as well be playing Combat Mission : Shock Force, or FlashPoint Campaigns : Red Storm, both of which are better "pure" strategy games).

Cheers,

Jamie

Strategy games are best played as strategy games instead of flight or tank simulators. Having horribly abstracted world is a serious immersion killer at least for me. I'd prefer fever intelligently behaving units than lots of make believe crap. What's the fun in plinking enemy units that are neatly lined up and merely try to shoot back if they happen to see you? What I'd like to see is them acting intelligently to keep you from killing them (hiding and/or calling for help) and shooting back in a realistic manner (human like spotting and aiming ability, cooperative tactics) or maybe even trying to ambush the player.

with LODs things like that can be eliminated, airplanes never even need to really load the highest level of detail, and agian im not talking about making the entire map have enterable buildings just a small part, heck even in arma you cant enter every building, and only a part of the map would have higher resolution terrain, whether the network or the server would be able to handle insane amounts of people at affordable levels is another thing.

This is exactly what I was saying in another post. With a few spots for FPS on the map, it can be done. Basically, that whys there so much ocean in Arma on maps like Utes. It cuts down the objects, yet allows for a lot of space to fly. Same could be done on the Caucasus map. Leave most of it the way it is ( well, a little better! ) and then just let a few villages etc. have really good buildings and land. This is where you have your FPS battles.