Jump to content

What is the future of CA?


Recommended Posts

The main problem in the Multiplayer part of DCS is the amount of CPU cycles the AI uses in order to calculate who can see who and what can engage what. Infantry is really a massive CPU hog, you'd be amazed at the amount of time the CPU has to dedicate to calculating just 40 infantry soldiers running on the map, let alone attack something.

 

In Single Player, this issue isn't as apparent as only the player is flying or driving around and all calculation are made with just one player entity. When the dedicated server comes along, hopefully multithreaded/multi-CPU capable, a lot of these calculation can be offloaded to other CPU's while communication and general overview is done by another.

 

Only then does it make sense to concentrate more effort in CA. If they make it fancy now, RTS-like if you will, and the server infrastructure fails with two or more pilots, the whole whine-train starts from A again.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Commodore 64 | MOS6510 | VIC-II | SID6581 | DD 1541 | KCS Power Cartridge | 64Kb | 32Kb external | Arcade Turbo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The unofficial roadmap has a better damage model (including vehicles), infantry transport capacity for vehicles and a CA campaign coming, all are listed under 2018, some planned and some in progress state. Might mean we see some interesting releases early next year, but unless CA 2.0 brings some more important features, I don't see it as a big game changer yet. However more opportunities are opened and ED has also bumped up the price of the CA module so I'd think something is on their radar though it hasn't been yet communicated.

 

What I'd think could be priority items in CA would be an improved RTS interface/unit control and player micromanagement over SAM systems (high profile air defenses).

 

I only put on the Unofficial roadmap the "plans" of ED. The dates show on that list has none write on stone an only orientative. The CA feature "plans" has from some years ago and has moving year to year delayed. The release of the vehicle transport capability has "unknown" and the damage modelling on vehicles coming after the WW2 and Modern aircraft and helos will be release.

 

Take account of the vehicle damage modelling has only a "plan" and actually we can´t say with features will be require implement previously can be release.

 

The RTS has actually on "works" (by a Chizh interview some time ago) but the release date and capabilities has unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only put on the Unofficial roadmap the "plans" of ED. The dates show on that list has none write on stone an only orientative. The CA feature "plans" has from some years ago and has moving year to year delayed. The release of the vehicle transport capability has "unknown" and the damage modelling on vehicles coming after the WW2 and Modern aircraft and helos will be release.

 

Take account of the vehicle damage modelling has only a "plan" and actually we can´t say with features will be require implement previously can be release.

 

The RTS has actually on "works" (by a Chizh interview some time ago) but the release date and capabilities has unknown.

 

In that case I have misinterpreted the roadmap, in particular the year figures - I had no history information and most of the stuff listed in years gone is marked as released. The "planned" and "in progress" terminology might be misleading when we're talking a very long-term and tentative roadmap. To me it conjures up images of agile dashboards where "in progress" is stuff in this sprint and "planned" is more items in the backlog that will be worked in in future (and foreseeable) two week sprints. DONE/"released" is stuff from the previous and earlier sprints.

 

What method do you usually use to assign the year for a feature? It could be an idea to add a few notes/disclaimers on the methodology of compiling and updating the roadmap to the first message.

 

What I understand ED has been giving us a lot of information about their ideas and goals concerning the roadmap. But plans and schedules can change all the time and the playerbase doesn't understand that, hence there has been much emotional exchange and ED has now reduced the flow of information. It's strange how many players refuse to understand game development and how it works.


Edited by Varis

SA-342 Ka-50 Mi-8 AJS-37 F-18 M2000C AV-8B-N/A Mig-15bis CA --- How to learn DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case I have misinterpreted the roadmap, in particular the year figures - I had no history information and most of the stuff listed in years gone is marked as released. The "planned" and "in progress" terminology might be misleading when we're talking a very long-term and tentative roadmap. To me it conjures up images of agile dashboards where "in progress" is stuff in this sprint and "planned" is more items in the backlog that will be worked in in future (and foreseeable) two week sprints. DONE/"released" is stuff from the previous and earlier sprints.

 

What method do you usually use to assign the year for a feature? It could be an idea to add a few notes/disclaimers on the methodology of compiling and updating the roadmap to the first message.

 

What I understand ED has been giving us a lot of information about their ideas and goals concerning the roadmap. But plans and schedules can change all the time and the playerbase doesn't understand that, hence there has been much emotional exchange and ED has now reduced the flow of information. It's strange how many players refuse to understand game development and how it works.

 

The main problem actually has not a "dedicated" CA team. Only some Stubs of info talked by Wags, Chizh and other ED personal, extracted of Q&A and some questions normally on the russian forum section, the english section was some years ago "off".

 

The same situation has with the "ground modules", no info, plans, developing info, etc yet. Normally I maintain all of "planned" and with some info appears turn them on "on progress".

 

The rest of road-map info coming from ED personal with share me info to put on them, the Friday official news, Wags develops reports, Chizh Q&As, FB and other social networks, Youtube, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

At first I was using CA just as a tank driving simulator ... but recently have found that it actually works very nicely as a tactical wargame .. I need to dedicate more time to it in order to manage everything more fluidly, but it is actually fun to use :)

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
At first I was using CA just as a tank driving simulator ... but recently have found that it actually works very nicely as a tactical wargame .. I need to dedicate more time to it in order to manage everything more fluidly, but it is actually fun to use :)

 

Yeah, there is a lot to be tapped into there with CA, and more to come as it develops.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want FC level SAMs. Not just short range self-propelled 2D screen.
Anything at level of Sam Simulator and it would go golden... Clickable Sam simulators... GCI etc.

 

And CA value would go to $120 on that moment...

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

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

Wow!"commanding a platoon from the driver’s seat". After four years I need more than a nice video and the word of future developement (in a latter stage) to spend more money in this product. .

 

Both AI and Command Menu are very basic if you don't use scripts and I'm not interested in buying them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow!"commanding a platoon from the driver’s seat". After four years I need more than a nice video and the word of future developement (in a latter stage) to spend more money in this product. .

 

Both AI and Command Menu are very basic if you don't use scripts and I'm not interested in buying them.

Sure. ED should really implement the real world commands and tactics that AI would follow and issue as well.

 

As well AI logic and limitations, meaning a MBT crew can't really see anything up in the air if buttoned down etc.

 

Infantry should be commanded in teams, squads and then platoons. To help player avoid micromanagement, the player draws plans on map and let AI execute them in expected time period.

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

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

I'm not asking for SBPro. just an update on platoon commands, a wedge of mbt wich advance covering sectors and some very basic units (Western EWR and AT infantery / Squad mg for the Russians & friends)
All that requires a new AI to form proper formations and positions on map. Move tactically in proper way etc.

 

Nothing extremely accurate but semi practical. So player or AI doesn't need to tell how to do things, but define the target and goals. Like example "withdraw from defensive positions A to positions D via route heading 125° and slow down enemy advance in the area".

 

That could be fairly simple thing for human, but for AI fairly difficult if it ain't designed to follow the purpose of the commands in general manner.

 

 

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

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

All that requires a new AI to form proper formations and positions on map. Move tactically in proper way etc.

 

Nothing extremely accurate but semi practical. So player or AI doesn't need to tell how to do things, but define the target and goals. Like example "withdraw from defensive positions A to positions D via route heading 125° and slow down enemy advance in the area".

 

That could be fairly simple thing for human, but for AI fairly difficult if it ain't designed to follow the purpose of the commands in general manner.

 

 

Thats right and let's be honest it will be a looong way. For the next 2-3 years I would be happy enough getting an AI following me in Low level flight (without crashing) and attacking the target of my choice (right runway e.g.). Even the other modern day flightsim failed in that area… But I see a great starting point.

Some years ago I dreamed of a cooperation from esimgames and ED but for what reason? Fill my living room with a cluster of 6 high end computers to get a 20kmx20km multi platform war running? Switching games is way more easy and keeps the competition up :smilewink:

i9 9900K @ 5,0GHz | 1080GTX | 32GB RAM | 256GB, 512GB & 1TB Samsung SSDs | TIR5 w/ Track Clip | Virpil T-50 Stick with extension + Warthog Throttle | MFG Crosswind pedals | Gametrix 908 Jetseat

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats right and let's be honest it will be a looong way. For the next 2-3 years I would be happy enough getting an AI following me in Low level flight (without crashing) and attacking the target of my choice (right runway e.g.). Even the other modern day flightsim failed in that area… But I see a great starting point.

Some years ago I dreamed of a cooperation from esimgames and ED but for what reason? Fill my living room with a cluster of 6 high end computers to get a 20kmx20km multi platform war running? Switching games is way more easy and keeps the competition up :smilewink:

It really shouldn't be so far, as the basics are already there in DCS world core. It just needs a lots of logic and rules. And most importantly a separate AI logics.

 

Like each side has own group of AI's. Each of them is responsible for different tasks, like one is for planning a supplies organization and distribution. Where to transfer them, how and when.

One is responsible for planning are reconnaissance missions, from where, to where, when and with what.

One is responsible for communications, how to get information delivered across troops. Where to position radio relay stations, what call signs and frequencies to assign on what units, and then simulate the delays of messages as information updates on strategic map to player as on every unit.

Individual AI to be responsible for air traffic control on each airport, having different responsible and replies based their knowledge etc.

 

Basically, the can be dozens of AI that each are responsible for very small proportions of the whole world. The most important ones are the information AI that delivers messages delayed, with inaccuracies etc that other needs to use.

 

Each AI made as simple as possible, quickly compute and quickly to sleep.

 

No one big AI that knows everything, and then try to do something with it, without cheating. One that needs to run everyone alone, in correct timing and order.

Like a AI responsible for a supply routes is not required to activate than few times per hour. A AI for a reconnaissance missions is run by every five to ten minutes. A troop animations etc are run only when there is a human camera looking at it. Most troops can be moved totally virtually without any 3D models or any collision modeling etc, quickly stored and quickly recalled.

 

A most largest change would be that everything on map should be mapped as hexagonal grid. As those are the core parts of troops movements and tactical as strategical decision making elements affecting everything.

Like knowledge that there are train station on hex 34568:22564 and it is connected to a road that leads to hex 34788:22001 where is a combat, that supply train can be sent from a safe hex train station that is connected to 34568:22564, where 5 required supply trucks transport supply to near combat area, two hex on the safe side.

 

It basically becomes similar to a transport tycoon, be it a supplies, flight missions, troop positions, reconnaissance locations, information delivery etc.

 

The most challenging part really is that you can't have vehicles move trough forests or over high mountains etc. Why roads, Rivers, railways etc are critical. Infantry can move trough Forest quickly, their support vehicles maybe too, but you lose visual connectivity and organisation etc.

 

It would as well require rewriting rules of information, where player doesn't know anything that AI doesn't know. It means, player can't see troops 3D models if they don't report back to base etc their accurate positions etc.

 

As player is required to take different levels of command. If player commands MBT platoon, that is all player see and know. And only other information is relayed by radio and messengers. So player might know that 45th MBT platoon is kilometer west of the city Markov, but not where there, what status etc.

 

Lower ranking position player goes, more accuracy player gets from troops, but more limited from surroundings. Higher ranking position means more knowledge about large scale movements, but far less accurate information and less often updated data of troops movements.

 

Like a player might see just the strike package flight plan on map and the estimated times, and then only listen radio about updates if possible to receive and listen those frequencies, and radar screen will tell the more accurate information but again, less than F10 map does now.

 

That is, because information AI maintains that expected information is received, nothing more. Most missions would even be just a row on roster about and player needs to look map and try to solve that with limited information.

 

A multiplier would be a chaos if players don't follow plans, as there wouldn't be anything really telling where they fly than some radio calls and radar stations possible tracking.

 

Pilots would need to report all kind location data over radio, like heading, speed, altitude etc so quickly a sudden change in mission to go after target that wasn't planned, and aircraft might be lost by friendly fire because information blackout.

 

And Vulcan coming out, many not-top-priority AI tasks can be run on 8th or 11th core, totally independent from execution timing from those moments where high performance is required, like LOS modeling or damage and trajectory modeling when units engage each others.

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....


Edited by Fri13

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

CA to do list:

 

 

 

  1. Commanders should have the ability to edit loadouts for air assets under command during mission.
  2. Commanders should be able to navigate the command map with key commands, mouse drag, or pointer to window border direction.
  3. Unit markers should appear as single icon to represent a parent unit. As map zoom increases so also should level of detail of parent unit revealing sub units.
  4. Unit markers for command-able units should appear different than non- command-able units.
  5. Unit selection should be click on unit, key command for next/previous unit, or box drag method.
  6. Unit set path procedure should be to set destination and then edit points between start and destination. Allowing changes to speed, formation, security stance. Add “facing direction upon reaching destination”.
  7. Add different ammo types in the "Add Target" dialog. Smoke, HEDP, Minelets, Copperheads...
  8. Add ability to link AI arty to units for direct command and control.
  9. Get creative with the VR support.
  10. Add mini map or MFD to Driver and Gunner view.
  11. Add knee board to CA.
  12. Simple unit grouping control. i.e. Ctrl+Click to select / add unit to selection> Ctrl+1 to assign selected units to Group1. Press 1 to command Group 1.*
  13. Drone Command and Control. Ability control drone sensors and direct flight path like vehicle destination command.
  14. Need more expansive comms with unit members. Platoon leaders need to be able to direct subordinates/ to locations via command map.
  15. First person Artillery Strike comms. Spot/correct/Fire for Effect calls.
  16. ...

 

The above items would make CA a whole lot playable and interesting. It's been said before that CA is not a simulator. I got Arma3 for that. There's a lot in that game that CA could use.

The biggest show stopper IMO is the command map interface. It's clunky and dated. It's supposed to play like an RTS. Not an RTS from the 80's.

 

 

I really hope CA gets the attention from the DEVs it deserves. It's a cool concept that has real appeal.

 

 

 

 

*thanks: sharkforce

 

 

 


Edited by SGT Coyle

Night Ops in the Harrier

IYAOYAS


 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CA to do list:

...

im not sure if there is a feature wish list thread where this is more appropriate, but I would also add:

12. Ability for tac comm. to add or remove individual units from a group.

 

edit: there is. ill just see myself out.

MSI Z170A G45, 32 GB DDR 4, 1080ti, I7 6700k, Trackir5, Warthog HOTAS. Microsoft FF2 Sidewinder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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