Tanks in DCS - Page 3 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-25-2018, 05:21 AM   #21
msalama
Veteran
 
msalama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,318
Default

Quote:
If you have MBT equipped insurgents, it's probably time to give up and flee to your Caribbean resort get away :p
The whole point is that I don't. It's light armor only. Would use even lighter hardware such as technicals etc. if those were available, but no.

Caribbean insurgents, you say? Now THAT is an interesting idea
__________________
"The DCS NS 430 currently available for DCS: Mi-8MTV2. DCS NS 430 licensing and distribution policy for other modules is being discussed and will be disclosed later. Belsimtek team"
msalama is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2018, 08:07 PM   #22
robert.clark251
Member
 
robert.clark251's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 258
Default

I think tanks are a great idea. I do not really go with the theory of tanks being non functional due to the pilots tearing them up. As stated, proper use of cover, better AI with AA and AAA will help flesh out a tank or armor module. There is still a big following of tank simmers out there waiting for this day to come. Steel Beasts is good but outdated similar to the Falcon sim, yet still has loyal followers.

I believe with the new tech DCS has implemented along with the various maps, it would be great to introduce more realistic mobile units. The middle east map and Normandy would be a good test bed for this. I know CA needs to be updated, but this could be part of that process. There are a lot of armor units that would be fun to use in the WW2 setting.

As far as staging goes, many ground units are forward deployed ahead of our aircraft in real world environments. In fact most the time its the ground units waiting on the air support to show up. So as far as spending 2 hours driving across the map, create FOBs for armor units to request air support or launch attacks from. I believe with proper communication, better ground AI, and team work, this would surley flesh out the ground aspect of DCS while gathering another group of sim enthusiast.

I have said it before, DCS is an oustanding sim for any person who desires extreme realism in a combat or non combat role. The implementation of the YAK-52 was outstanding and a good asset to the Vegas map. I encourage more combat roles wether transportation or ground attack with armor. It all has a place on the battlefield and if DCS builds it, people are going to buy it. I would love to see the day an online dynamic campaign is available where ground forces (armor) and air units push a line forward and maintain the ground.

Either way, the future looks bright for DCS and its followers. I have all faith they will do whats best for us and hope eventually we see their amazing work spread into tanks.
robert.clark251 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2018, 01:33 PM   #23
john9001
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 93
Default

Make it so a player can go directly into a ground unit like you can a airplane. Instead of having to haul the parts and build the ground unit.
john9001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2018, 02:14 PM   #24
rogonaut
Member
 
rogonaut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robert.clark251 View Post
I think tanks are a great idea. I do not really go with the theory of tanks being non functional due to the pilots tearing them up. As stated, proper use of cover, better AI with AA and AAA will help flesh out a tank or armor module. There is still a big following of tank simmers out there waiting for this day to come. Steel Beasts is good but outdated similar to the Falcon sim, yet still has loyal followers.

I believe with the new tech DCS has implemented along with the various maps, it would be great to introduce more realistic mobile units. The middle east map and Normandy would be a good test bed for this. I know CA needs to be updated, but this could be part of that process. There are a lot of armor units that would be fun to use in the WW2 setting.

As far as staging goes, many ground units are forward deployed ahead of our aircraft in real world environments. In fact most the time its the ground units waiting on the air support to show up. So as far as spending 2 hours driving across the map, create FOBs for armor units to request air support or launch attacks from. I believe with proper communication, better ground AI, and team work, this would surley flesh out the ground aspect of DCS while gathering another group of sim enthusiast.

I have said it before, DCS is an oustanding sim for any person who desires extreme realism in a combat or non combat role. The implementation of the YAK-52 was outstanding and a good asset to the Vegas map. I encourage more combat roles wether transportation or ground attack with armor. It all has a place on the battlefield and if DCS builds it, people are going to buy it. I would love to see the day an online dynamic campaign is available where ground forces (armor) and air units push a line forward and maintain the ground.

Either way, the future looks bright for DCS and its followers. I have all faith they will do whats best for us and hope eventually we see their amazing work spread into tanks.
i think so too +1
rogonaut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2018, 04:29 PM   #25
Lunatic98
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 944
Default

I personally would love to see full-fidelity ground vehicle modules for DCS, provided they aren't classified and can be procured relatively quickly. Because of this I think it best to focus on vehicles that are no later than the cold war say from the 1930s (for WW2) to say the mid-1980s maybe some wiggle room depending on capability or how likely there are to be classified information that can't be reasonably approximated.

For ground vehicle modules to become a thing though we still need to see a few things added to DCS to facilitate them for example:
  • Proper implementation of vehicle physics (suspension, neutral steering, amphibious capabilities etc)
  • Proper implementation of FCS systems (stabilisers, radar gun-laying, firing modes of missiles where applicable)
  • Proper implementation of vehicle sights, periscopes and RADARs
  • Implementation of vehicle exterior lights (including searchlights for applicable vehicles) and animations.
  • Realistic sounds
  • More shell types where applicable, as well as proper implementation of ammunition types where applicable.
  • Damage model improvements (armour, ricochet and component damage).

Some ideas for tanks and variants just to start us off with potential candidates, personally I think it best to start with cold-war MBTs, but hopefully in the future we'll see some full-fidelity self-propelled, towed and semi-mobile air-defence systems and RADARs. Maybe beyond that light tanks/tankettes, SPGs, APCs, IFVs, ARVs, ATGM carriers, armoured cars and maybe even engineering vehicles such as recovery vehicles, bridgelayers etc.
  • M60A1 (AOS, RISE, RISE-P)
  • M1 Abrams
  • FV4021 Chieftain (Mk.3, Mk.5, Mk.10, Mk.11)
  • FV4030/4 Challenger 1 (Mk.2, Mk.3, Mk.4)
  • Leopard 1 (Anything but preferably 1A5, maybe even a Canadian C1/C2 version)
  • Leopard 2 (2A1, but could go as far as 2A4)
  • AMX-30 (preferably B, B2 or maybe B2 BRENUS)
  • Stridsvagn 103 (B, C)
  • Merkava (1, 2 or even 3)
  • TAM
  • Type 61
  • Type 74
  • T-55 (A, M, AK, MK)
  • T-62 (Obr.1960-1975, K, M, MK)
  • T-64 (A, AK, AV, B, BK, BV)
  • T-72 (A, AK, AV, B, BA, BK)
  • T-80 (A, B, BV, U)

Past that, light/amphibous tanks, SPGs, ATGM carriers, AFVs etc.
__________________
Spoiler:
PC Specs: AMD FX-6300, Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3, Patriot Viper 3 8GB (2x4GB) Sapphire Radeon 7870XT, Seagate Barracuda 1TB HDD, Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit Saitek X52 Pro, Track IR 5 with Track Clip Pro

Modules I own: AJS-37, F-5E, MiG-21Bis, MiG-15Bis, Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, A-10C, UH-1H, FC3, Hawk, C-101, P-51D
Lunatic98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2018, 03:51 AM   #26
robert.clark251
Member
 
robert.clark251's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 258
Default

I think having a simulated SA-5 or SA-8 module would be challenging and fun to use. It would be rewarding providing surface to air support for Combined Arms. Before the bashing starts, check out the several complex sam simulators out there for PC simulating the SA-5 and SA-8.

The fidelity and realism DCS could bring to a module such as this would be very impressive. ANy surface to air module would be a good asset if bringing in tank modules. As stated before in my prior post, its a balancing act to make the game enjoyable but still realistic. Having surface to air units in a convoy and a lone or multiple player aircraft coming after the convoy would be a good thing. Making it more challenging for the player aircraft to engage. If you had a good ZSU player or someone who was playing well with an SA- 5 or 8, things could get interesting.

I still think there is a large playable space that would bring a healthy balance to DCS with ground armored units. Again, I know combined arms needs some work, but I think this would build a stronger player basis down the road.




Last edited by robert.clark251; 09-13-2018 at 03:57 AM.
robert.clark251 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2018, 08:42 PM   #27
aymen
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: tunis
Posts: 18
Default

hi
the tanks ride it is a real simulation or just direction and fire ??
aymen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2018, 05:49 PM   #28
Kev2go
Senior Member
 
Kev2go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,820
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhukov032186 View Post
It's been a few years, but they once requested any declassified documents on the Abrams people happened to stumble across. So, yes, they've definitely thought about it, though to date nothing more was ever said or done.

My post history only goes back a few months, I tried to find it, I think was back in my pre-forum lurking days, I'm not sure.


there once were copies Operators and TM for M1 and M1A1 floating around in EBay at one point. and mabe somewhere on the internet you can still find them. ( no meaningful changes besides addition of NBC system, Fire control system is otherwise the same, but for 120mm ammo.)


Armor wise there is a Declassified CIA document thast shows the layout of the Armor composition of the initial M1 abrams


https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...00220014-8.pdf


There are various protection estimates floating around. Whilst Interaction of ballistic protective is different than pure traditional Steel armor, Should be simplified to an equivalency of about 400mm RHA Ve KE based threats for the turret, and 650-700mm Vs CE based ammo.

TO estimate Burlingtoin Gen 2 used in M1IP and M1A1 based on the Vanilla Burligton 1 for M1 is a matter of measuring the turret which was lengthened to make room for extra layers. The estimates range from 450mm- 550mm vs KE threats.

Burlington 2 Its just additional layers of NERA, and no new composition type compared to Burlington 1.


http://i.imgur.com/CiWU2bd.jpg


SO with some Estimates M1, M1IP and M1A1 are feasible tank modules. Later versions get more tricky as later composition have have DU inserts but is uknown how many of layers within the Existing NERA composition, or how much composition is altered, or How effective it would be. Steel beasts For eg has even modelled the M1A1 HA, and M1A2 SEP. ( but they have government contracts so they have access to Information provided by the Military for these newer tank models)

However one thing is common. All armor have estimates. You arent going to get Exact armor on any anything post cold war.


A Steel beasts thread does a decent Overview

http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/109...y-of-us-tanks/
__________________





Build:

Windows 10 64 bit,

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Nctua NH14S ),Crucial Ballistix DDR4 16gb ram (2400 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD, Samsing evo 850 pro 512 gb SSD

Last edited by Kev2go; 10-13-2018 at 05:55 PM.
Kev2go is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
combined arms

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 03:24 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.