Jump to content

Checking interest on DCS: IADS (Integrated Air Defense Network)


Checking interest on DCS: IADS (Integrated Air Defense Network)  

1024 members have voted

  1. 1. Checking interest on DCS: IADS (Integrated Air Defense Network)



Recommended Posts

Yes, with one caveat.

 

I agree with others that the base sim should get full AI controlled IADS capability, but I would not mind the option to pay for a separate module to control the network as long as it goes into as much detail as is allowed by classification status. Should also not be a server requirement, but work much the same way that CA currently does now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 362
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

bump, would too love to hear if there have been decisions made or any progress @NineLine. Still really interested in this. Could also been linked in some way with Battlefield Productions maybe 😉

Dear all,   We have been approached by a new 3rd Party, a radar technology company, who would like to gauge the interest in a DLC to allow you to build, command and manage an Integrated Air Defense N

Super interested!     I’m feeding my baby after she woke up again for the billionth time tonight, I’m half zombie with  insomnia, yet even in this wretched state I still become excited enough t

Yes, with one caveat.

 

I agree with others that the base sim should get full AI controlled IADS capability, but I would not mind the option to pay for a separate module to control the network as long as it goes into as much detail as is allowed by classification status. Should also not be a server requirement, but work much the same way that CA currently does now.

 

Yes!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am voting NO on this for the same general reasons as people before me.

 

These are great features and ideas, and I would certainly welcome them into DCS World.

However, they should be a part of the base game (core) and the command features could be bundled into Combined Arms (or release a much updated Combined Arms 2).

 

If it must be done as a paid module, we cannot have it in anyway act as a block to multiplayer gameplay. The WWII Assets in this regard was one of the worst decisions ED has made. (Having the assets and their detail level is great, though - and I say this as an owner of said asset pack).

 

Even with the Super Carrier, while myself and the friends I typically fly with all have it - we still include one of the older carriers in most of our missions in case we get a newer player joining in.

 

To some, myself included - the first big leap into DCS other than "testing the waters" is multiplayer, and having an openly accessible and engaging experience is a big part of making someone trying things out into a career DCS pilot and module purchaser.

My Rig:

 

 

CPU: i9-9900k - Corsair H150 Cooler. RAM: 32GB, 3200Mhz.

Mobo: Asus MAXIMUS Formula XI - Main Drive: 512GB NvME SSD

DCS Drive: 512GB NvME SSD - Graphics: GTX 1070 Ti. Display: 23" 1080p LG LCD.

Input: Razer Naga & Blackwidow Ultimate, TrackIR 5, HOTAS Warthog & MFDs (x4), Saitek Rudder Pedals, TurtleBeach PX22 Headset.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need clarification on this.

I am under the impression that AI will get their IADs/Logic overhaul irrespective of a DLC release.

And that this DLC will be an option for players to control the IADs system directly. Like combined arms but more specific.

 

If that is the case I am all for it. But the core game MUST get an AI IADs overhaul without a pay wall. Then a combined arms like expansion additional to it for $ is okay. If it is replacing the original AI IADs overhaul I am not for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes.

 

But.

 

I also share the concerns about how such a module would be implemented. If the ability to build IADS in the ME and fly against them in missions is integrated for free into the base DCS World, then yah, I'd be all for it, with bells on. If it splits the community into "free ADS" and "premium IADS" camps and adds another module that would be a base requirement for community made missions, campaigns, and MP servers, then I would be sadly opposed.

 

I realize the situation with a third party developer approaching ED with this is complex. I'm assuming they'd want to brand it themselves and make proceeds off sales, which would probably make integration with ED's Combined Arms impossible. The question then becomes do they think they can make enough money by building a free upgrade to DCS World with an additional paid upgrade "SAM Simulator" module? If they're for it, that's awesome; I'm not super interested in a SAM Simulator module but I'd probably buy it anyway to support them. If they don't think they can make that model work I understand, but I would not support a module which locks advanced AI air defenses for missions behind a paid module.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted no, but I would like to explain my position. I don't think it's a good idea to boil this down to a "yes" or "no". Releasing a module like this runs the risk of further fragmenting the multiplayer community, which we've already seen happen with Supercarrier. The implementation needs to be done carefully so that the community is not further fragmented. AI IADS behavior is a feature that should be in the base game. I can understand and appreciate the awkward position ED is in in regard to features like IADS, ATC, etc, that by all rights should be in the base game of any complete flight combat sim. This stuff simply wasn't planned for way back in the days of standalone A-10C and Black Shark. And now you have a third party who is willing to implement this feature and naturally they want to be paid for it, which is perfectly reasonable.

 

That being said, discussions about things like IADS and ATC as separate paid modules comes across as the customer base being asked to pay for ED's lack of planning 10 years ago, and that rubs me the wrong way.

 

If the paywall only prevents you from commanding the IADS network, and anyone is allowed to fly against an IADS AI (or player-commanded by somebody who bought the DLC) in multiplayer, then I am 100% in favor of it.

 

If the paywall prevents any and all interaction with IADS unless you own the module (i.e. you're not allowed to connect to a server with an IADS network placed), then I am fully against it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested if DCS would expand on EW capabilities. An integrated air defense network is just fancy models with magic missiles until radar signature, jamming and all that good stuff actually means anything. This is on top of the CA module being very, very neglected and not fun for the most part. What good is an IADS if I cannot use it...

 

Opted no because of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm being completely honest, I'd wait for it to go on sale then buy it lol....... But it would be cool to learn about it. It's the sort of thing I'd incorporate into homeschooling in a few years just as a neat extra topic.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

M-2000C | F/A-18C | F-14B | Bf 109 K-4 | UH-1H | Ka-50 | Mi-8 | SA342

i5-9600K @ 4.8ghz | 32GB DDR4 RAM | RTX 2080

T16000M FCS | TWCS Throttle | MFG Crosswind.V2 Rudder Pedals

"Dialectic"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, absolutely.

 

The group that I fly with currently uses Skynet to achieve some of this functionality, but having something which builds on the concept in the proposed ways would be well worth the money to me.

 

Is there any word on how it will work in terms of players who do and don't have the module?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but conditionally:

 

Any DLC should be implemented in such a way as to not split the userbase in multiplayer. ED made the decision that the Supercarrier module would be allowed into missions with people that did not own the module.

 

I want any IADS module to be similar- I don't want another WW2 asset pack that can't be used by the bulk of the multiplayer userbase.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note guys, this is super early and only trying to gauge interest, I am seeing a lot of comments about CA or that IADS should be part of the core, nothing has been decided, and I am sure the AI network very well could be part of the core, but what this group is also talking about is much beyond just an AI controlled network.

 

I will raise everyone's concerns from this thread and other locations, don't stress too much about it right now.

 

Thanks.

spacer.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 post
Share on other sites

@nineline

 

I appreciate your note, and I'm just one man's voice, but given the history, I'll stick to no until this is fleshed out and EW is conditional for me. IADS without a meaningful EW on the side of aircraft is not something I would get value out of.

 

But it got my attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this would definitely be a day 0 buy for me, as a former air defender (having spent half my adult life in ADA - Air Defense Artillery *or* Alcoholics Defending America, depending on who you ask) i would like to see air defense become more robust& realistic .

 

This is an incredibly complex undertaking in that the TTPs (tactics, techniques and procedures) vary not just system to system -obviously- but from country to country using the same system. Even within the same country/same system there may be varied TTPs (for example, when stationed in Germany, we trained using NATO standards, but during that tour we deployed to Iraq and had to rapidly relearn our TTPs to FORSCOM standards)

 

Additionally, Id like to see the ability to set a defended asset list, when applicable , to define which portions of coverage i was actually wanting a system to defend (which isnt always 100% of whats covered by the radar)

 

It would be nice to be able to field a JLENS and sentinel radars

 

it would be interesting to see to what level interoperability is achieved (ie. not all systems can share radar pictures, but may be able to provide a radio "heads up")

 

I know some expect this to be free&included with CA or the core game, but this is quite an undertaking and i see no reason why the dev shouldnt expect to be compensated for their efforts.

 

ED has plenty on their plate, between continually improving the core engine that we paid oh-so-much for as well as developing the modules that keep the lights on and the payroll paid. If we wait for them, we'll be holding our breath for a long time and there'll still be someone saying "hey ED- whyre you developing IADS when you should be chasing bugs/ implementing (insert weapon system here)/ or working on my pet priorities?!"

 

a 3rd party dev tentatively willing to tackle this daunting task is the most likely chance we have for it and attracting more 3rd party devs to the table is best for all of us

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] DCS: The most expensive free game you'll ever play

 

 

 

Modules: All of them

System:

 

I9-9900k, ROG Maximus , 32gb ram, RTX2070 Founder's Edition, t16000,hotas, pedals & cougar MFD, HP Reverb 1.2, HTC VIVE

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This should be part of the base game, or at least come with the Dynamic campaign. If it really had to be a seperate module, it should be part of combined arms (for direct control) with non-direct control achievable through the mission editor by everyone.

IADS should be part of DCS, but a DLC is not the answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a note guys, this is super early and only trying to gauge interest, I am seeing a lot of comments about CA or that IADS should be part of the core, nothing has been decided, and I am sure the AI network very well could be part of the core, but what this group is also talking about is much beyond just an AI controlled network.

 

I will raise everyone's concerns from this thread and other locations, don't stress too much about it right now.

 

Thanks.

 

 

You should add in some sort of GCI code to this or the core game as well. No offense but that AACS code is lile from the 90s and badly needs to updated to give pilots relevant information, not some BRA to a tanker halfway across the map while some bandit is about to merge.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the note 9Line.

 

I think it's worth noting that a LOT of us have purchased things like the SC and WWIIAP while protesting the fact that they are separate... but knowing what happens if we stop giving the dev of the NLY game in town our money.

 

These things tend to only last so long and then turn us sour... Make sure ED doesn't go that far or we're all screwed.

Win-10 x64

 

Nvidia RTX2080 (HP Reverb)

Asus Prime X570P

AMD 3800x

32GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

 

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals

Using VJoy and UCR to remap Throttle and Clutch into Rudder axis

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...