Wags request M1A2 SEP info...

The Georgia map is not unusable, specially if you are talking armor, sure it has issues some bigger than others, but it is overboard saying it is unusable....

 

Bottomline, we dont know what ED has plans on many different fronts, including terrain.

No, the Georgia map is unusable for armour, at least if you want something approximating a sim experience.

Bowling green plains are not generally found outside salt flats, this means that most fights end up as a target range:

The terrain mesh that just can't deal with gradient changes in a way that allows good hull down positions:

These are simply consequences of the map being originally designed for flight sims, not ground sims. No biggie, we are asking more of it than was probably ever in the design requirements.

Quite frankly, if you want to go drive tanks, you are better off in (now bargain bucket) ARMA 2 than CA in Georgia right now, never mind SB. Irrespective of the level of simulation of the vehicles, the terrain in Georgia isn't detailed enough to use normal tank tactics effectively (even if we ignore the whole seeing and shooting through trees thing), which makes it unusable in a high quality tank sim.

That was quick....

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2003039&postcount=2

Yay!

Now fingers crossed for some M1 flavoured goodness :)

I am basing Georgia on being a free map, its good enough for a freebie, although it would be nice if something like Nevada could replace it as free later on, just for the reasons you give, but again... we dont know.

But, to my mind, the freebie should put best foot forwards whilst not giving the whole thing for free, it's not just a gift, it's an advert.

As it stands it's plenty good enough to demonstrate the air simulation, where it falls down is showing off the ground simulation to best effect.

ED would have to update the terrain map of the Georgia map in order to make it a good representation of the kind of environments most tanks will traverse. As was said before, DCS was designed as an air combat simulation, not a ground simulator. As such, given the sheer scale of the area ED had to model there wasn't much room in polygon budgets and such to include terrain with the kind of granularity you might expect from the likes of ArmA or Steel Beasts (just as they cannot render a map large enough to encompass air combat relevant to the battles they model).

Maybe Eagle Dynamics could pull some strings to get an E-8 JSTARS to do a flyover of Georgia to help them to get a good picture of the terrain.

Don't we all just want Nevada and a multirole fighter? I couldn't care less about tanks. Kinda tired of DCS going all WW2, watered down FC3 and ground combat on us.

I know some guys will be thrilled about this but I'm definitely not one of them.

:doh:

Well... somebody had to say it! Thought I'd beat everyone to the punch.

Don't we all just want Nevada and a multirole fighter? I couldn't care less about tanks. Kinda tired of DCS going all WW2, watered down FC3 and ground combat on us.

 

I know some guys will be thrilled about this but I'm definitely not one of them.

:music_whistling:

V E R Y- I N T E R E S T I N G

Don't we all just want Nevada and a multirole fighter? I couldn't care less about tanks. Kinda tired of DCS going all WW2, watered down FC3 and ground combat on us.

 

I know some guys will be thrilled about this but I'm definitely not one of them.

V E R Y- I N T E R E S T I N G

Future DCS module confirmed.

(Or maybe you meant the OP, but that evidence is only slightly stronger)

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

+1

I agree with what most of your comments

If its DCS intention to create a more realistic tank Simulation. (Kudos)

There is defiantly room in the market for one.

I don't know how many times I have lorded praise on DCS for the whole Modular approach to anybody interested in the Subject of Military Simulations. But CA was so poor compered to your other modules

Yes it was a beta release and yes you guys told the community it was not a

Realistic simulation. And was a work in progress the vehicle models the Sounds the AI behaviour was way below the high standards DCS had a Reputation for. I find it strange you guys have created such a realistic .

Air war environment. but a totally unrealistic ground warfare environment.

My final point what's the point in creating a few highly detailed models if the other vehicle are not up to scratch if it is your intention to slowly introduce

Better Tanks with realistic behaviour I for one will stick with it,

Its taken years for SB to get where it is and I have been with it all the way from SB gold. if you do not intend to go the distance with CA and just Introduce Minor improvements fine just tell you customers what your plan is.

am I smelling Nevada ticker going off??? Sounds like ED are closing the envelope on Nevada and want a tank simulator in place for that area. I reckon its for military use (although it would be logical if we get a second hand, reduced kit from licensee as with A-10C)...

am I smelling Nevada ticker going off??? Sounds like ED are closing the envelope on Nevada and want a tank simulator in place for that area. I reckon its for military use (although it would be logical if we get a second hand, reduced kit from licensee as with A-10C)...

If it was a contract with the DoD they wouldn't need to ask the general public for info or SMEs.

So the SB team can't get access to most of the A2 SEP information and they create sims for various militaries......but ED can?

Sorry, just don't see that happening. No way GDLS is going to give out most of that information. Lol

My bet is that its going towards a UI re-design of the command map system of Combined Arms and some cosmetic changes to the tank gunnery so that it *somewhat* resembles the real thing as well as some implementation of some actual thermal imaging.

Testing team member uses emoticon on forums:

 

Future DCS module confirmed.

:bored:

:glare:

:chair:

:punch:

Be careful what you wish for. Sooner than we expect it we might need to properly boresight our guns after taking the tank out of storage, for training, after maintenance, after transport.. And that involves hacking tons of numbers into a system that doesn't control your input for nonsense, and lets you do it all over again if you get bored and mess up :D

Don't we all just want Nevada and a multirole fighter? I couldn't care less about tanks. Kinda tired of DCS going all WW2, watered down FC3 and ground combat on us.

 

I know some guys will be thrilled about this but I'm definitely not one of them.

Aren't you tired to always shoot at AI vehicle ? I'd be more than happy to blow human driven tanks with my shark :P

Don't we all just want Nevada and a multirole fighter? I couldn't care less about tanks. Kinda tired of DCS going all WW2, watered down FC3 and ground combat on us.

 

I know some guys will be thrilled about this but I'm definitely not one of them.

I, for one, think you're absolutely right when you say a full-fledged M1A2 SEP module is the wrong way to go for DCS World, and no amount of emoticons and face-palm GIF dogpiling is going to change that. DCS World isn't even close to ready for something like this, and we all know ED's tempo isn't exactly high.

and we all know ED's tempo isn't exactly high.

That likely applies to the tank, too. Lets see what happens while that is being worked on. As you say, long time for changes.

:bored:

 

:glare:

 

:chair:

 

:punch:

Wow! I would have never suspected DCS: Malibu Beach Bar was that far along in development!

:pilotfly: