Jump to content

Do you want a tank module for DCS Normandy


Recommended Posts

I am writing this post to get the communities thoughts on a DCS level tank module. Looking at WW2 era to begin with US/German, possibly Russian later on down the road.

 

Before the hate train starts rolling, I am aware of the 2.0 engine, weather or not the terrain would be sufficient for tank battles ect.... I have faith these are issues that can and will be ironed out in the future. As we have already seen, Nevada is shaping up pretty nice. I want you guys to look at the overall picture and get your thoughts on bringing another fundamental component to the WW2 battlefield.

 

It is my belief there are many different simmers out there. Next to aviation, it has been a long time coming for someone to pick the ball up on Armor sims. Yes, we all know about Steel Beasts and I do not want to turn this into a "let them keep the tank sim" forum. I believe it can and will be done better at some point in DCS. The question is, is the desire their from the community.

 

Lets hypothetically say an attempt is being made to get a team together. Would you guys be interested in a Sherman and or Panzer/Tiger module? And yes, everything would be fully functional fully operational just like the aircraft.

 

Please let me be clear, nothing has been made, is in the process of being made, or even been run by Eagle Dynamics/Devs. I just want feedback to see if a run was made at this, would the hype follow.

 

And by the way, I have access to this


Edited by robert.clark251
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal thoughts on the matter, for what it's worth:

 

DCS is a study sim that appeals to a very specific kind of person: someone who wants to learn. I love to learn about everything: military aircraft, civilian aircraft, tanks, ships, submarines, SAM sites, radar stations, you name it. If DCS could do it all to a high level of realism, I'd gladly pay for it. The community's needs are as varied as each man: following this train of thought, it is clear that our "needs" are infinite. However, the developers' resources are finite.

 

Let's be real. At the moment, the vast majority of people want three things: new maps, new aircraft, and era-specific ground and air AI units to create an immersive combat environment. These three things are what I'm dying for, and they're mostly what generates hundreds of pages of heated debates and discussion on the forums.

 

Of course, I'd love a tank. Who wouldn't? But I see resources being spent doing a tank I might like as resources being taken away from other projects about planes I am sure I would definitely love to fly. If I have a choice between a tank and a plane, or a tank and a new map, or a tank and a new set of AI units for a Korean or a Vietnam war... the tank will lose this "battle of needs" every time. I see a tank project as a "nice to have", but not as a "must have" like these three things I mentioned earlier. Maybe it's just me being pessimistic, but I can't help but think that developing something to the detriment of stuff that we desperately need is not an efficient way of expanding the world of DCS.

 

So, speaking for myself, as much as I commend an effort to create "something new", I would say "pass".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see the Normandy map include at least fairly, realistically operating ground units. If it works along the lines of the Combined Arms, fine. If is takes too large of a portion of the server's processing power, no.

 

I can't imagine that the game engine could handle a flight simulation parallel to a highly realistic ground combat simulation with possibly hundreds of thousands of objects acting on the ground at one time.

 

I'm still wondering what ED is going to do with it as it is. On and after 6 June 1944 there will be masses of 'units'--what ever that will mean for the simulation--on the map at any one time, if they are included in a mission. During WW-II there were still distinct front lines, especially in Normandy. A large portion of these will be fairly well hidden from the sky, because they were already trying to hide from each other on the ground. Will ED put them on the map anyway? Will most of them be more like static objects? Will there be literally thousands of destrucable objects on the map at once? Moving and fighting each other all at once? My brain is melting :huh:

  • Like 1

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be real. At the moment, the vast majority of people want three things: new maps, new aircraft, and era-specific ground and air AI units to create an immersive combat environment. Of course, I'd love a tank. Who wouldn't? But I see resources being spent doing a tank I might like as resources being taken away from other projects about planes I am sure I would definitely love to fly.

 

I don't see why would developing a ground vehicle automatically mean taking away resources from development of a new aircraft? The OP is not asking us to choose between a plane or a tank. Not all developers can or want to develop aircraft to DCS standards.

 

Plus, playable tanks require things to shoot at and fight with (so, additional ground units are a given) plus better vehicle AI and infantry modeling so if anything, it would require bringing wider improvements to the base game.


Edited by Dudikoff
  • Like 1

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see CA as a simulator, and I really don't think it is intented that way either. While it would be cool, very cool indeed, resources are finite, and there are many other things to introduce / fix before such an adventure.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like tanks a lot, especially the WW II ones.

 

But a line needs to be drawn somewhere unfortunately. As it is, DCS is good at doing flight dynamics. But it has a lot to do regarding combat modeling like fixing damage system, retouching ballistics of some of the weapons etc. Then there is whole stability issues, especially with multiplayer. Even combined arms can cause stability issues in it's current state.

 

As a dream, it sounds lovely, but there are many important issues to adress with ED's finite sources, one can branch out only so much without getting all over the place.

 

Edit : forgot about whole lack of ground combat AI. Ground vehicles are all seeing, and lack even the simples tactical ability. They just see you and snipe you, while sitting out on the open unless they have a way point. There is lots to fix before such a thing can be enjoyable in DCS.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love tanks and I believe you could do some very good matches even in a Normandy setting (for example, Cromwell/Sherman/Pz IV, or M18 Hellcat / Panther), but at the same time, I feel its just unnecessary, since it would not add much to the sim. What would tanks do in the first place? Just fight other tanks and occasionally get bombed down? If you want more you would need a lot of AI objects to shoot at/from as well, like AT guns, Flak guns, pillboxes, trucks, infantry (problematic in itself due to legal and practical issues, for example an absurdly high tank:infantry ratio etc. If you want to do a deep, DCS-level simulation, you will also need to model rather complex tank systems.

 

Or would they have some kind of mission (like capturing airfields in a mini server war)? That would need mechanics, too. Also there are, thankfully a lot of good tank product that do all this rather well.So I believe while the idea is intriguing, it would seem to be impractical, unless a LOT of work is put into the thing, which means both that its both a separate purchasable module (and I am not sure of the financial viability of that) and that it would take away from the work being done on planes. Which takes quite a lot, if you consider how long it takes from beta status to the final release.

http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site

 

Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse!

-Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment

The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be nice addition, love the Panther V (tiger is ugly square box) but DCS level Tank would would need long time they need rescoures to build them.

Rather like as said would be in first line bring finaly Normandy map and other sim stuff that is still meiles away. I think wagg's search for M1 abrahams dokuments some time ago.

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I love tanks and can talk about different types all night, I would rather see more aircraft models added. B25 is far more important than M4A3 (W)76

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

 

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.

My channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why would developing a ground vehicle automatically mean taking away resources from development of a new aircraft? The OP is not asking us to choose between a plane or a tank. Not all developers can or want to develop aircraft to DCS standards.

 

Plus, playable tanks require things to shoot at and fight with (so, additional ground units are a given) plus better vehicle AI and infantry modeling so if anything, it would require bringing wider improvements to the base game.

 

Combined Arms is currently the extent of DCS "tank simulation", which is insufficient for a "DCS-level" tank simulation model. A third party could develop their own module, but ED will have to integrate the module to the main DCS World trunk, which means

a) developing tank-specific new features within the codebase

b) rework all current maps (Georgia and NTTR) to set up more advanced terrain properties for ground units

c) integrating a new ground-based collision and physics model

d) updating their SDK to create other tank modules for other potential 3rd parties

 

So yes, resources will be taken "away" in the sense that ED coders can't do everything at once. Work is not only performed from the 3rd Party side, it also performed by the ED for integration.


Edited by Charly_Owl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the replies gents. To address taking away time spent on aircraft, I would like to see a team come together who just wants to make tanks. I am not insinuating any current third party developer take on this project and deviate from their current list. I am talking about a whole new third party dev team.

 

Charly_Owl brought up a good point I had not thought of yet. What ED would have to do to accommodate ground-based collision and physics models. Again, if the support was there, this would be something discussed with ED prior to putting in a lot of hard work. Of course I would want to know if ED is on board with this challenge.

 

Kurfurst, I would like to address several things in your comment, which I appreciate. I just do not want to see a regurgitation of this with other posters.

1. You ask what would tanks do in the first place? Well look at the current sim and ask yourself what do the aircraft do? DCS at its core is a sand box simulator. I for one spend a lot of time online flying with the guys and dog fighting. Objectives in online are taking airfields and holding positions, attacking ground units, and providing support. I think this would be an excellent role for tanks in an online match. It provides aircraft from each side to provide air support to ground units defending and attacking. It fleshes out attacking AI units. Their are many simmers out there who would rather drive a tank than fly a plane.

 

2. The static WW2 objects you refer too for the Normandy map, to the best of my knowledge, are already being worked on for the map. Common sense would lead me to believe a WW2 map would not be developed with modern units. I am not insulting you by saying this, please take no offense.

 

3. You refer to needing a tank model rather than complex systems. I have both. Where I live in the US, we have the fortunate ability to drive tanks around on our land here in Texas. Not only that, we can shoot them. I also have access to WW 2 armor museums. I will include the links below so you can see what I have access to if I were to attempt a tank module. Again, no insults meant, I just want you to know where I am coming from.

http://americangimuseum.org/collections/restored-vehicles/

http://texasmilitaryforcesmuseum.org/exhibit/

 

I agree with you this task would be a lot of work. I disagree with you the task is impractical. If DCS world is to grow, someone needs to create a team looking at other ventures. It is already being done with maps, why not armor? The tanks would be sold as separate modules. I am not talking about refining combined arms. It will be interesting to see how combined arms is worked into the Normandy map. I greatly appreciate your train of thought Kurfurst. Argumentation is the practice of effective reasoning. I always loved that quote. I mean no disrespect to you if my responses were a little straight forward.

 

I thought I remember someone saying a tank sim has been done by someone else and let them continue to make the tank sim. Again, I am sure you are referring to Steel Beasts. They are no where near as close to DCS in terms of High Fidelity, accurate modeling and textures. Someone will eventually pick that ball up and run with it and when that day comes, it will give Steel Beasts a run for their money, and more than likely pull their player along too. I want to see DCS be that opponent. Without competition, we stagnate. It drives us to be better than the person/opponent we face. Something we all should be familiar with.

 

I greatly appreciate all the responses and look forward to more. Debates are nice and I take no offense to what is said. I look forward to more input from the guys I share the virtual skies with.


Edited by robert.clark251
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really would enjoy full fidelity tanks modeled in DCS, honestly not just tanks either, I think I would get a lot of enjoyment out of lighter vehicles, both WW2 period and more contemporary options. And agree I would rather see them come from an additional third party rather than those who are currently working on aircraft, or ED themselves to avoid redirecting resources.

 

However I also strongly agree with what Chuck is saying, right now I feel DCS would require a large investment of time and resources to truly accommodate them; along with Chucks points I think we would need an overhaul of damage models for ground units, the addition of proper fragmentation, improvements to the ai for the ground war among other things.

 

If I am wrong and these things can be added with relative ease I would welcome the addition, again beyond just WW2. I just think improvements to the flight sim should take priority but if unused resources or perhaps a separate team, within ED, can work on improving the sim to better accommodate a full fidelity ground module, it would be fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see several issues. First is the amount of crew it takes to operate a tank. I don't think a tank SIM would be up to dcs standards. Might get fc3 with ai doing all the work.

 

Next as said they would have to rework terrain. You have to incorporate mud, dirt, grass, trees, and everything else with how it would react as well as the physics.

 

I think you would need destructible environments and buildings as well.

 

I thing in the long run it is too large a task and would severely slow down the production of aircraft and updates.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see several issues. First is the amount of crew it takes to operate a tank. I don't think a tank SIM would be up to dcs standards. Might get fc3 with ai doing all the work.

 

I think that vehicle simulator is too much to ask for other than 1 person per vehicle operation.

 

Next as said they would have to rework terrain. You have to incorporate mud, dirt, grass, trees, and everything else with how it would react as well as the physics.

 

We need already now for air vehicles simulation a reworked terrain.

We need more trees.

Variation on the trees (tall trees, short trees, bushes etc)

We need passable and unpassable terrain (rivers, roads, forest, rocks, hills etc) creating a tactical and strategical element where ground units can go, and what air units needs to keep on eye.

We need ground concealment meaning ground units would not be spottable visually less than 1.5-1km distance unless specific things are met like units are moving, units are located on open areas, units doesn't have any concealment from trees and such against FLIR etc.

Trees and terrain overall needs to affect to laser and radar. It would limit how to select placements for SAM sites or how a CAS aircraft can actually laze the targets.

A reworked terrain would generate realistic situation where common engagement ranges are from 25m up to 500m, rarely going over 1000m ranges. That creates very serious purpose to have a CAS aircrafts up in the air when ground troops has difficulties to engage each others, this as well leads infantry to be far more valuable as they can ambush and destroy vehicles easily in the forest or side of the roads.

 

I think you would need destructible environments and buildings as well.

 

That is not really required any more advanced manner than now for a while. Just to get a building to set in fire and collapse after specific impacts etc. But in future we need that not for ground units, but for air units. We need that 250kg bomb would devastate few buildings around them and troops inside them. It would create a reason to carry a couple iron bombs with you and really get buddy laze for accurate impacts.

 

But what we need even more, is a capability for infantry to assault an building and enforce it for their defensive purposes. That means new animations for infantry to be located at roofs, at cellar, fire RPG/rockets and MANPAD from roofs/cellar/windows. And that means the buildings should be mountable. Like you can land a helicopter on roof and unload squad there that then takes defensive positions in that building.

 

That would seriously change the urban combat once and for all as infantry would be far more serious threat to everyone than they are now. CAS pilots would start having nightmares thinking about flying over cities, helicopter pilots gets reason to learn NOE and CA commanders would need to learn how to prepare an urban combat and troop transports.

 

 

I thing in the long run it is too large a task and would severely slow down the production of aircraft and updates.

 

But that would be required to be done sooner than later if we want to get even a semi-realistic aircraft operation to DCS!

DCS is currently good only for fighter vs fighter situation or long range SEAD missions or even for Anti-Ship. But it is not good for helicopters, nor any kind CAS flying because ground units simply does not have the capabilities and functions they would have, not even that 10% what they should have. Right now A-10C pilots are having easy time, like hitting a baby. Ground units are unprotected, undefended, highly nerfed to be able to operate what so ever in realistic manner.

 

DCS looks amazing and nice when you are cruising at 15 000ft/5km but get lower and it starts showing its simple manner. Jump to helicopter and it is great to get the idea even that you can transport a troops from point A to point B.

 

But none of these requires a specific module for ground vehicles operation, just the terrain and buildings.

 

Even more important would to work with the ground units AI, so that AI is not all seeing, all hearing. It should be so that every vehicle has simulated changes to spot aircrafts toward their angles and motions and positions on terrain. A MBT engaged to combat does not have a time or change to let commander pop-up and start shooting HMG toward air threats.

 

But all this eventually leads to one thing, and that is like the years old demo video about DCS M1A1 module where the animations were improved for the suspension, acceleration etc. It has gone from Youtube but those who saw it, should remember how awesome it was.

 

As that animation work is the thing required once we get the needed reworked terrain with lots of bushes and other ground clutter.

And then that requires CA to be transformed to RTS kind module, where players can easily move around the ground and get around the maps easily to command units like in RTS games ie Wargame Airland Battles.

 

And all the above would specifically benefit every aircraft module owner now and in the future more than any new aircraft module will ever. It would change the multiplayer totally in one night, when fighter pilots can't anymore just fly at low or go hunting helicopters, and helicopters has a totally different meaning and effect and finally there is more reasons for players to own a CA module to play DCS as RTS by commanding battalion of men and other units vs few fighter pilots going on.

 

It would as well easy a lot of mission creators as they don't need to script and design everything but simply let the humans do the combat scenarios from the starting positions.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charly_Owl brought up a good point I had not thought of yet. What ED would have to do to accommodate ground-based collision and physics models. Again, if the support was there, this would be something discussed with ED prior to putting in a lot of hard work. Of course I would want to know if ED is on board with this challenge.

 

War Thunder did a very similar transition. First, only planes were available and then the game was gradually updated to include driveable ground units, mud, deformable terrain, transmission systems, collision models, armor penetration models, tank shell ballistic models... and the tanks are simple enough to drive. The game is still arcadey but the result is still quite impressive on the tank side of things.

 

This update took easily 2 years (if not more) to implement and required a massive overhaul of the game engine. ED is still updating EDGE technology at the moment... and I'm not sure they really have the resources available for yet another engine overhaul.

 

But, once again, I'm just guessing at that point and what I say should be taken with a grain of salt since I am not affiliated with ED nor aware of ED's plans for the future.

 

TLDR: If a bunch of motivated people want to create tanks, by all means go for it! But they have to make sure that their objective is attainable and that they will have the support necessary to accomplish their project within a reasonable schedule. It'd be a shame to see people invest months, if not years of their time in a project that could end up being impossible to materialize for reasons out of their control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of good feedback guys, and agree with most of it. Sounds like the enthusiasm is there, we are all just concerned with what ED can do with the ground physics, terrain ect.....

 

I think in time this will be fleshed out and worked on, especially with more aircraft inbound with primary roles in ground attack. Many things stated in the above post need to be implemented, however I do not think all are completely necessary to get tanks on ground in the game. I do believe the physics, ballistics, and operations are essential to creating a DCS level tank though. With out these you wind up with a arcade simulator and I know this is not what any of us want.

 

I disagree with anybody who says the tank has to many members to crew and operate the module. We already fly with 3 in Mi-28, 2 in the UH-1 and 2 in Gazelle. It has been done with bombers in other older games as well. I wont start going off on B-17 the Mighty Eighth and other successful titles that required multiple crew. The fact is, if you do not want to jump station to station, or rely on AI, do not by the module.

 

I agree with not limiting ourselves to just tanks and WW2 era vehicles. Baby's have to learn to crawl before they walk and I thought the best models to complement each other to start with would be 2 WW2 opponents. I would love to see more modern Tanks/Armor down the road.

 

Something I do not see happening for a LONG LONG time but thought would bring a unique play style to DCS is trains. During WW2 the Germans, English and even French had armored trains. Especially the Germans. If any of you are familiar with Train Simulator 2016 by dovetail, it is almost up to the same detail/operations of a DCS module. This would be very fun to implement trains into the Normandy map carrying supplies for each side. Would also provide CAS and search and destroy missions for both sides. Also being able to jump from the Driver to multiple gunners placed on the train to fend off fighter/bomber attacks. A pipe dream for now but not out of the realm of reality.

 

Again guys, much appreciated feedback. This is the constructive stuff ED needs to see. They are doing a great job of making us happy but lets keep these ideas flowing in hopes to get some ground TLC soon. Again, its not just going to affect combined arms, but the operations of Helos and ground attack aircraft.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the combined, simultaneous air/ground battles in War Thunder turned out to be very interesting. It sounds like an awesome concept on paper, but in practice, there is not much meaningful interaction between players in planes and players in tanks. It just splits the player base and makes multiplayer more logistically difficult.

 

In terms of gameplay, a realistic Tank Sim would benefit a lot more when combined with a First-Person-Shooter environment, than it would with a Flight Sim. It would be awesome to see a Red Orchestra style game with accurate Tanks in them.

 

Placing a Tank Sim into DCS would just be spinning one's wheels, so to speak. I would fully support a development team making their own awesome WW2 Tank Sim, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel its just unnecessary, since it would not add much to the sim. What would tanks do in the first place? Just fight other tanks and occasionally get bombed down?

DCS is a study level environment and a proper full systems simulated tank would be completely correct. The same questions you ask are the same that people asked when the P-51 came out.

If one sheep leaps over the ditch, the rest will follow. ;)

 

I have a feeling ED has seen that they can do better than Steel Beasts and is already working on it. Why else produce a realistic copy of Fort Irwin, instead of opening up the map towards Edwards and Fallon? And wouldn't it be interesting for the russian DoD to have an Armata sim on a SB/DCS-level without giving info to the americans?


Edited by Vincent90
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

I have a feeling ED has seen that they can do better than Steel Beasts and is already working on it. Why else produce a realistic copy of Fort Irwin, instead of opening up the map towards Edwards and Fallon? And wouldn't it be interesting for the russian DoD to have an Armata sim on a SB/DCS-level without giving info to the americans?

 

I too was under the impression, that ED is working on a high fidelity M1 Abrams module, given how they promised big changes or even a complete overhaul for CA in the future and Wags request for M1 documentation a while ago.

 

I hope they haven't abondoned that, because Digital Combat Simulator means more to me than just air warfare. I mean it's labeled "DCS World - Air Sea Land Combat" for a reason.

  • Like 1

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think ED is planning on making a fully modeled M1 Abrams someday,but not right now.Especially since their busy trying to get DCS 2.5 up and running and releasing the F/A-18 as well as the maps,multi-crew,other WWII aircraft and better AI for infantry and other things there focusing on now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I've always wanted a tank sim in DCS. I believe something like an M1a1 Abrams would be a good start, or a russian tank such as a T-72.

DCS needs WWII ground units, and wwii ai aircraft. When these are released with Normandy, I would love to see a wwii tank sim in DCS.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Big YES for tanks from me :thumbup:

  • Like 1

CPU: Intel Core i7-2600k @3.40GHz | Motherboard: Asus P8P67-M | Memory: Kingston 8GB DDR3 | OS W10 | GPU: Sapphire R9 290x 8GBDDR5 | Monitor: Samsung Syncmaster 24" | Devices: Oculus Rift, MS FFB 2 joystick, Saitek X 52 Pro throttle, Saitek Pro pedals, Gametrix Jetseat

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say this will not fly ;)

Something that seems easy as just adding another (vehicle) module in reality may be two totally different animals.

Just the fact that both are "sims" does not mean that they have the same requirements. One point is that the core engine has to be tailored towards specific needs. The flight sims are not focusing so much on ground details but rather on the large size of the maps. With the tank sim it would have to be opposite, the environment can be smaller but has to be detailed or the possible experience will be poor. The main point however is that it's not only a simulator of a tank as a vehicle - all of the tactics and environment of the warfare needs to be simulated. This means that the whole engine has to be focused on different aspects. It if's just a tank that we could drive an blow up a stuff than I would not call it a simulator.

Overall, not that I'm against the tank sims as such but sorry to say that it's better to keep one vision and try to focus on creating a dedicated solution rather developing the platform for everything.

 

There are many examples (not only from IT) that trying to be the best in everything just doesn’t work.

 

AntonovA40.jpg

*A-40 Krylya Tanka

(no intention to be mean here but sometimes a picture is worth 1000 words).

F/A-18, F-16, F-14, M-2000C, A-10C, AV-8B, AJS-37 Viggen, F-5E-3, F-86F, MiG-21bis, MiG-15bis, L-39 Albatros, C-101 Aviojet, P-51D, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Bf 109 4-K, UH-1H, Mi-8, Ka-50, NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf... and not enough time to fully enjoy it all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...