Interview with Wags - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-19-2019, 09:41 PM   #1
Ramrod_45
Junior Member
 
Ramrod_45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Leeds UK
Posts: 71
Default Interview with Wags

Hi all if you haven't seen this already you may find it interesting.......


https://www.mudspike.com/mudspike-am...r-matt-wagner/
Ramrod_45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2019, 11:09 PM   #2
Pizzicato
Member
 
Pizzicato's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 869
Thumbs up

Hot DAMN! The info and details in that interview are INSANELY exciting.


That's the best thing I've read in forever...
__________________
i7-7700K @ 4.9Ghz | 16Gb DDR4 @ 3200Mhz | MSI Z270 Gaming M7 | MSI GeForce GTX 1080ti Gaming X | Win 10 Home | Thrustmaster Warthog | MFG Crosswind pedals | Oculus Rift S
Pizzicato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2019, 01:14 AM   #3
Phantom453
Member
 
Phantom453's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 730
Default

Well that was insightful and well worth the read.
Phantom453 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2019, 05:51 AM   #4
Worrazen
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Posts: 975
Default

Yeah, I concede to AI being higher on priority than ATC, while I'm personally more for ATC than AI.

And they say we're not tolerant

Edit: For some reason, I think it's that I'm so interested in radios and signals, I'd be running HAMs and FR24 feeders if I could afford, I did a bunch of some RTL-SDR tho.

I did infact post wishlist ideas around here about signal simulation, radio antenna types and RF emission pattern, which means range affected by frequency, antenna position(rotation,etc), environment (rain), obstacles, terrain, and reflection. MP Voice being integrated with the actual in-game radios, and then the voice audio quality affected dynamically by signal quality, integration/interaction with F10 map view, ground forces and CA.

And ofcourse this would also go for datalink, emergency beacons, commands from Battlefield Commander to ground units, between units and AI-to-AI too, you may contact ATC, but if ATC will hear you should be another story, except excluding comms that go to satellite uplink.
Another example is ground units having datalink and/or comm ranges to faciliate target sharing and sight perhaps, to the extent it works in real life ofcourse, but if a minor effects are simulated for DCS it's going to be good enough, not necessairly target/sight sharing directly like getting exact position, but maybe some kind of "group awareness" which would make some effect on the realistic F10 View as well (the one that commander or other players could see)

But separately I had the idea the Battlefiled Commander and similar positions being a playable slot, not in just commanding troops like in the GUI, but also being able to talk to other players with DCS Voice over the actualy in-game radio mehanic, but that Battlefield Commander would ofcourse have ATC and all kinds of units at his disposal to get the message through ofcourse still limited by relays, if relay (AWACS, Ground HQ Radio Tower, Captured Civilian Radio Tower, etc, but could be almost any unit with comms right? (with exceptions if some old don't have proper radio/freq)) is destroyed then some units may not get their orders through.

In the Dynamic Campaign perhaps Battlefiled Commander would appropriately be somewhere physically located at an airbasem HQ, forward command post (we need new models for all that stuff too) , having some kind of datalink and comms with the AWACS or other units to relay, he could be on the AWACS or equivalent (doomsday plane) himself, and he would be destroyed too if the AWACS he's on goes down, but, should still be parachutable, IMO this would happen in reality even tho there is no ejection seats most likely, if there was damage but not broken up, spinning going down, basically if systems damaged and destroyed to certain level that is considered critical and while structural integrity ok it would determine OK for parachutability, then the timer would start, perhaps randomized between 25-40 seconds, then they would parachute out the back or side (cool animation opportunity) (possibly idea for all non-ejection-seat wide body aircraft), ofocurse if altitude high enough, if not then they just wouldn't be lucky, moreover then you have another big reason for SAR stuff to come into play, to rescue the Battlefield Commander (or how does DCS call it, i just made it up for this example) then presto another twist to the gameplay.

So I think this signal stuff could be one big addition to the depth, but sure it doesn't need to come with the inital release, maybe I'm too optimistic, reflection of signals probably isn't easy on hardware so it would be simplifed/simulated, but really not necessary that much, if theres only like one bounce it's enough.

However I'm impressed it's really going to do with all the supplies and materials, very good, that'll keep us busy enough, it's good this gets first as it will make a good reason to bring helicopters into gameplay even more to balance things out, it may not load as much as a big transporter jet, but it can sneak unnoticed some crucial supplies through the valley.
__________________
DCS-Setup: Win10 x64 1607, 1440p@75"32, MOBO: Asus P9X79, CPU: Intel Core i7 3820 4.0GHz, GPU: Radeon RX 480 8GB, 24 GB RAM @ 1333 Mhz, DCS on SSD Samsung 860 EVO 250GB, Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5 joystick.

Last edited by Worrazen; 10-20-2019 at 06:37 AM.
Worrazen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2019, 08:04 AM   #5
SonofEil
Member
 
SonofEil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 706
Default

I have to admit I’m more than a little confused by the multiple mentions of another new graphics and terrain engine. The development of EDGE and DCS 2.X took nearly a decade and were touted as a long term and versatile solution. I know there are still a lot of performance and lighting issues in 2.5, and overall graphics improvements have slowed considerably, so is ED really pivoting away from what amounts to their still-new engine?
__________________
i7 7700K @5.0, 1080Ti, 32GB DDR4, HMD Odyssey, TM WH, Crosswind Rudder...
SonofEil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2019, 08:25 AM   #6
bell_rj
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonofEil View Post
I have to admit I’m more than a little confused by the multiple mentions of another new graphics and terrain engine. The development of EDGE and DCS 2.X took nearly a decade and were touted as a long term and versatile solution. I know there are still a lot of performance and lighting issues in 2.5, and overall graphics improvements have slowed considerably, so is ED really pivoting away from what amounts to their still-new engine?
Yeah, this has me purplexed too. 2.5 took a lot of work and a lot of time to arrive. I'm concerned that they seem to be replacing that. Perhaps it turned out to be just a stop gap. Maybe, with the need to better support VR, go to multi-core, etc, ED worked out that even though they'd made that massive investment in 2.5 they had to replace the graphics engine again?

Don't get me wrong - if ED replace the graphics engine with a better one, that enables much better technology and better performance then that's a good thing. I just hope it doesn't turn out to be a much longer endeavour than has been implied so far.

I actually quite like the terrain as it is. Maybe a new terrain engine is needed for the A-G radar? It would be interesting to hear from ED why a new terrain engine is needed.
__________________
PC specs:
Spoiler:
Rig specs: i7700k @4.45Ghz. 32GB RAM. MSI GTX 1070ti. 27" 1440p G-Sync monitor. Samsung M2 drive.
bell_rj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2019, 08:41 AM   #7
hanab
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 143
Default

Many annoucments, many project…..perhaps too much for a small team like ED ?
hanab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2019, 08:58 AM   #8
schurem
Member
 
schurem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: nijmegen, the netherlands
Posts: 535
Default

Perhaps not all at once, and maybe not literally in two weeks. Much of it reads as a to do or wishlist.
__________________
I7 4790K, 32GB, 1070, CV1, PointCTRL
schurem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2019, 09:46 AM   #9
Robin_Hood
Member
 
Robin_Hood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bell_rj View Post
Yeah, this has me purplexed too. 2.5 took a lot of work and a lot of time to arrive. I'm concerned that they seem to be replacing that. Perhaps it turned out to be just a stop gap. Maybe, with the need to better support VR, go to multi-core, etc, ED worked out that even though they'd made that massive investment in 2.5 they had to replace the graphics engine again?

Don't get me wrong - if ED replace the graphics engine with a better one, that enables much better technology and better performance then that's a good thing. I just hope it doesn't turn out to be a much longer endeavour than has been implied so far.

I actually quite like the terrain as it is. Maybe a new terrain engine is needed for the A-G radar? It would be interesting to hear from ED why a new terrain engine is needed.

I believe it has been said that the current (new) engine doesn't support larger maps than what we have, so maybe new developments would aid towards that.
__________________
2nd French Fighter Squadron
Robin_Hood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2019, 10:00 AM   #10
falcon_120
Senior Member
 
falcon_120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Barcelona,Spain
Posts: 1,117
Default

This was a lovely read. First time we have something like an estimate date for DC. Ok its 2021 but that does not seem so far away.
falcon_120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:08 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.