Wags request M1A2 SEP info...

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2002724&postcount=1

Dear all,

 

We are looking for detailed information on the M1A2, preferably SEP update, to include:

 

1- Commander's independent thermal viewer (CITV) with second-generation thermal imager, commander's display for digital colour terrain maps for IVIS.

 

2- DRS Technologies second-generation GEN II TIS thermal imaging gunner's sight.

 

3- Inter-Vehicle Information System (IVIS.) The IVIS system allows for the automatic and continual exchange of information between vehicles. By incorporating information provided by an on board Position/Navigation (POSNAV) system, unit commander's can track the location and progress of subordinate elements automatically, without tasking vehicle crews. In addition enemy positions can be identified, plotted and disseminated, while reports and artillery requests can be automatically formatted, transmitted, and processed. Lastly, map graphic control measures and operational orders can be rapidly distributed via the IVIS system.

 

4- Complete and detailed description of the driver control system and driver's integrated display and thermal management system.

 

4- Detailed functional description of all commander, gunner and driver control panels.

 

5- Detailed and complete photography of inside commander, gunner, loader, and driver areas.

 

- Note, please do not just link to items found on Google. Been there, done that.

 

If you feel you have unique data that is NOT classified, pleas drop me a PM. We may also be looking for M1A2 SMEs.

 

Thanks!

Matt

The first steeps to a real vehicle model on DCS:W / CA?

MMMMMM maybe a new kind of simulation for CA ?

A M1A2 Abrams like the A-10,P-51,...modules ?

I like the idea ! :thumbup:

Maybe they will even have multi-player crew worked out by the time it is done.

If the terrain issues are ever going to be worked out then this could possibly be a good replacement for Steel Beasts Pro PE... It's been forever since I lost my stupid dongle.

There is also mention about Tunguska module possibility:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2000625&postcount=1740

And my question: How does one even find unclassified info on these systems? Couldn't Eagle just contact General Dynamics Land Systems and ask them if it's legal for them to do an M1A2 SEP simulation, and if so provide the required documentation and data?

I'm having a very hard time wrapping my head around this classified/unclassified stuff. Is the only reason we have a modern attack aircraft (the A-10C) because ED got a contract to develope the simulator for the USAF/ANG? If it wasn't for that would we even have such a highly detailed modern aircraft currently operating in active theaters today?

DCS-M1A2.... yessssssssssssss!!!!! :cheer3nc:

If it wasn't for that would we even have such a highly detailed modern aircraft currently operating in active theaters today?

There's nothing in DCS A-10C that is actually classified.

DCS-M1A2.... yessssssssssssss!!!!!

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

There's nothing in DCS A-10C that is actually classified.

I just want to ask where are all the Mi-28's, AH-64A/D's, F/A-18E's, MH-60L/L-DAP's? Is it a matter of classification/legal matters or the problem of development time due to more advanced avionics and weapons.

Sorry if this is semi off topic but this seemed like a good thread to maybe ask some of this stuff since Wags is requesting us to send him any info we may know of of the SEP.

Well colour me intrigued....

I'm looking forward to see where they are going with this, although as I've said a number of times, there's more to competing directly with Steel Beasts than just the tank models themselves.

Here's hoping for great things :)

@SyntaxError - It's a mixture of access and experience. There are top tier aircraft on their way, the Cortex Superbug and the VEAO Typhoon are two that spring to mind, they are just not their first aircraft as they (VEAO at least) want to cut their DCS teeth on something simpler first.

Also people are building what they have access to, VEAO are working with BAe on other projects, Beczl Studios (or whatever they are now...) have easy access to MiG-21 knowledge. You can't make a decent top-tier aircraft with just Google and making those relationships from a standing start is hard... Those with the detailed knowledge required to make current model the current iteration/block/tranche of frontline fighters are probably too busy flying/maintaining them to have second jobs building virtual ones :) And that's before you even start to think about classified capabilities,

Jamie

MMMMMM maybe a new kind of simulation for CA ?

On the other hand, terrain is a serious issue here. I don't think Georgia is adequate for a hifi ground module. We already know new terrain (other than Nevada) is in the works/planned. If they are planning one or more ground vehicle modules, I am curious as to whether they plan a new free terrain with the base DCS world, a non-free terrain included with the module, or if they stick to Georgia (with other terrains being pay for).

Georgia as a free terrain would be fine for someone wanting to get an idea of what DCS is all about. As for how future terrain and land based modules (if they will even be individual modules) we will just have to wait and see...

 

Another thing to consider is this, M1A2, how big is the training area for something like that? How much detail would be required? That could be something that could be included with a module, just a simple training area. Just a thought, my own personal opinion.

Georgia may be ok for "messing around in tanks", but it would be woefully inadequate for even relatively basic armoured warfare in most places, lacking the mesh resolution necessary to represent the small rises and falls in the ground that represent the difference between hull down and getting to see the working end of a SABOT round.... Whether even Nevada goes far enough in this regard, I'm not yet convinced.

By way of comparison, SB Pro PE limits maps to ~22x22km, so maps of that size would give enough room for decent tank battles, but anything fixed wing would feel pretty cramped.

Cheers,

Jamie

Fort Irwin National Training Center

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

https://maps.google.es/maps?q=Fort+Irwin,+California,+Estados+Unidos&hl=es&ll=35.641673,-116.630859&spn=1.966392,2.469177&sll=28.444464,-15.853272&sspn=4.254461,4.938354&oq=Fort+Irwin+National+Training+Center&hnear=Fort+Irwin,+San+Bernardino+County,+California,+Estados+Unidos&t=m&z=9

That is the best ED map to training grounds to M1A2, SW of Nevada, near Las Vegas, not bad make them to a "expansion" of NTTR. Home of "OPFOR" units.

As for a smaller map, what is not to say you woudnt see smaller maps for armor and maybe helo combat...

Another thing to consider is this, M1A2, how big is the training area for something like that? How much detail would be required? That could be something that could be included with a module, just a simple training area. Just a thought, my own personal opinion.

Reckon it depends solely on how detailed a sim they make out of it, if even to that level. It could be Arma level, it could be SB level. Well, maybe not, but you get the jest.

I am talking purely based on a free map that comes with DCS World. Obviously ED is well aware with what needs to be improved for any form of tank sim, or whatever they might have planned.

 

As for a smaller map, what is not to say you woudnt see smaller maps for armor and maybe helo combat... we need to think outside the box... if the map tools come along and are half as good as they look, the possibilities are endless....

If you are going to sell a tank sim (if indeed that's where this is going), with nothing more than a small training area (the free Georgia map being basically unusable, Nevada being of unknown detail), it's gonna get old pretty quickly. Realistically, unless we expect to start to see a slew of community made maps either before or at the same time as release, it's going to be a case of making the big maps just detailed enough to work for armour, without borking it for everyone else.

Unlike air combat tactics, which for the most part are somewhat terrain independent, terrain drives ground tactics and without a good variety of quality terrain, the tank sim will die on it's arse for lack of things to do in it.

The last announcement I remember said they weren't giving all the terrain tools, just enough that you could build it and they could compile it into a usable format, has that changed?

I like where this is going M1A2 SEP

RFI for M1A2 SEP

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dear all,

 

We are looking for detailed information on the M1A2, preferably SEP update, to include:

 

1- Commander's independent thermal viewer (CITV) with second-generation thermal imager, commander's display for digital colour terrain maps for IVIS.

 

2- DRS Technologies second-generation GEN II TIS thermal imaging gunner's sight.

 

3- Inter-Vehicle Information System (IVIS.) The IVIS system allows for the automatic and continual exchange of information between vehicles. By incorporating information provided by an on board Position/Navigation (POSNAV) system, unit commander's can track the location and progress of subordinate elements automatically, without tasking vehicle crews. In addition enemy positions can be identified, plotted and disseminated, while reports and artillery requests can be automatically formatted, transmitted, and processed. Lastly, map graphic control measures and operational orders can be rapidly distributed via the IVIS system.

 

4- Complete and detailed description of the driver control system and driver's integrated display and thermal management system.

 

4- Detailed functional description of all commander, gunner and driver control panels.

 

5- Detailed and complete photography of inside commander, gunner, loader, and driver areas.

 

- Note, please do not just link to items found on Google. Been there, done that.

 

If you feel you have unique data that is NOT classified, pleas drop me a PM. While the TM 9-2350-288-10-1is probably a restricted document, often there are unclassified training documents (power points) that detail the same information. We may also be looking for M1A2 SMEs.

 

Thanks!

Matt

__________________

lol I like where this is going.:thumbup:

I am talking purely based on a free map that comes with DCS World. Obviously ED is well aware with what needs to be improved for any form of tank sim, or whatever they might have planned.

 

As for a smaller map, what is not to say you woudnt see smaller maps for armor and maybe helo combat... we need to think outside the box... if the map tools come along and are half as good as they look, the possibilities are endless....

it dont have to be a smaller map, it just have to be a area in a big map that have a higher grade of detail