Jump to content

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


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

1018 members have voted

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



Recommended Posts

  • Replies 359
  • 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

"DCS: Clouds" will next... followed by "DCS: Land based ATC".... "DCS: Dynamic Campaign"... at this rate, don't be surprised if they start trying to sell individual weapon systems....heading right into the direction of that online game with planes, tanks and ships....

 

Please stay on topic, and stop trying to create issues where there are none.

 

Look at the update I just posted in the OP and just above yours. I mean seriously, at the end of the day this is just a game, the wild conspiracy theories are just sort of silly now. Thanks.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4469808&postcount=172

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

I would love to see this in game, but only to play against it, not control it.

As such, I put down "no".

 

 

Is it possible to make it playable for everyone, but only accessible in the ME if you bought it? That would encourage me to buy it for my own personal missions. (But I wouldn't want others to have to buy it just to fly my mission)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Yes. ... depends, I guess ...

 

 

The features, available for all as per NineLines update, are very interesting. But as I understand it, the interactive features to control the network, are really only usefull in multi-player ... which I seldomly fly.

 

 

But I could imagine me paying for an updated CA 2 with some new features, like this, but also some more fleshed out existing features (the F10-map UI to command units is awful and un-immersive!).

Did you know? True Harrier fans contribute to the AV-8B Community Bugtracker!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes

Pointy end hurt! Fire burn!!
Black Shark 2, A10C, A10CII, F-16, F/A-18, F-86, Mig-15, Mig-21, P-51, F-15, Su-27, Su-33, Mig-29, FW-190 Dora, Anton, BF 109, Normandy, Caucasus, NTTR, Persian Gulf, Channel, Syria, WWII Assets, CA. (WWII backer picked aircraft ME-262, P-47D).

Link to post
Share on other sites

No and yes.

Voted Yes.

 

This all should be about core DCS, it should the DCS: Combined Arms.

 

The core DCS should be about communications AI (handles delays, information accuracy, transmission quality, communication overall) that is unique AI for each unit, so one AI needs to perform the communication between other AI's without any change that one AI that is "all seeing" can cheat or talk "with itself".

 

The IADS should be part of the DCS core, as well the realistic commands and all FROM THE MILITARY. The militaries has all these already trained and in place, all it requires is to simulate each position, task and person as nodes.

 

I would like to see ED to develop all these core systems, or even hire the 3rd party studio to implement them in DCS:CA.

But then let the 3rd party studio start developing and selling individual:

- SAM systems like a SAM Simulator does.

- Radar Operator/Communication stations (AWACS)

- Ground Units (Tank Simulator, IFV simulator)

 

All based to the DCS core. A individual stations without requirements to CA module.

The DCS:CA should be required as a corner stone for main communications (GCI, ATC, Ground Commander, Platoon Leader etc) as ground unit management system. Where a players without a CA module could occupy a single ground unit stations under command of a CA module owner as a platoon leader. (We need more players to crew individual units).

 

But I do not like the idea that core DCS systems are given away to third party that then controls such a features as a realistic communications, Early Warning picture, GCI station and such....

Those should be in DCS World and Combined Arms.

 

If 3rd party comes out with a Tunguska, OSA-AK, Strela-10M and such simulators, I buy them. If they are additions to DCS:CA, I buy first CA and then each wanted SAM simulator.

To be able sit inside a BUK-1M and work with a GCI as well fighter pilots over radio, I could do that for hours.

But it as well requires we get realistic concealments, counter measurements and such against Hornets etc so they can not find us at all, and they can't detect our launches if not visually, then not earlier than when SAM is few seconds from impacting them.

 

There are people who are ready to sit in ATC tower in various airfields, jump from air controller tower to another to complete their tasks. As well people who would be ready to sit in a command center as GCI to work with pilots, SAM opetators and ATC to get fighters moving.

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 post
Share on other sites
Please see the OP, and here. The team has been watching and wanted to add some additional feedback:

 

We will have an internal discussion about this topic next week but for now, some things I can tell right away:

 

· There would have to be some DCS Core functionality to integrate our module seamlessly. My idea was to go the same way as the Supercarrier module.

 

 

But what's about Ed's own IADS implementation? Last year we were told, that ED was working on IADS improvments. Did this go nowhere?

 

 

I was hoping that we would see some improvments regarding SAM system logic in 2020 or 2021. If you scrab your own development and scource it out to a third party, it'll be years until we get some improvments at all.

 

 

Please do not try to overdeliver. I'd prefer smaller but neat and reliable improvments to such important shortcomings over being promised the greatest, but having that with a price tag and 5 years of early access.

It's a bit of a star citizen effect imho; Sure people will always love the idea of eventually getting the greatest. But after all the recent backlash, wouldn't it be better to just stick with what is in development internally, get it out and then reevaluate instead of always going bigger?

 

 

Right now IADS is so non-existent in DCS, that i'll bet a skilled programmer could create some logics for simple IADS within days and this would already elevate the dcs experience by so much.

 

 

Same with electronic warfare: Sure a super complex module would be interesting, but right now there is literally nothing and just doing the minimum would help so much already. Better to have something simple and reliable that works now and fixes the most glaring problems, than biting off more than you can chew.

Since i started with dcs on 1.4 or so the clouds were not working in multiplayer, were not working in vr, were unrealistic and visually not very pleasing. Since then i've also been showed WIP pictures of new clouds, then promises of whole new humidity system, then pictures of better clouds...

Meanwhile clouds still don't work...

My personal wishlist after 2 years with dcs: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=216873

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nineline,

 

Based on your update provided in post #172 I could change my vote from No to Yes.

I still believe the operational component could be bundled in as a component of combined arms (and that again could be a paid upgrade to “CA:2” as the original investment for CA was very low so a paid feature expansion wouldn’t be unreasonable to me), but if the pricing was reasonable I would be ok to purchase this as it’s own module. I look forward to the feature set regardless, as playing as air defenses in CA is already a lot of fun - so more air defense play would be excellent!


Edited by Tiburtius

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

Example someone who only has CA can easily track contacts in real time, compared to someone using a radar screen from the IADS module.

 

 

That is something ED should change. Add a true "Fog of War" where no one knows everything than their own vehicle(and that only by their own means of navigation).

 

So if a radar scans a sky 6 RPM, it is one update per 10 seconds. That would mean someone has limited capabilities to follow someone in tight maneuvers.

 

If we add proper radar functions, we would start to see a radar contacts blinking and disappear here and then at various conditions. Add there ECM and chaff, and we start to get serious trouble to have anything visible or tracked as we get false returns, multiple returns, ranges going crazy etc.

 

And adding multiple radars active, should just improve the picture as one would need to connect all together. It means different ways to link radars and communications so one can get at least a picture what is happening as one should even be required listen radio where AI tells the target position and then player use own pen to mark on map the position as heard over radio.

 

No more magical F10 map with perfect information what unit, what type, what side, where and how.

 

More requirements to have a flight plans for everyone in multiplayer as you will get shot down if not following procedures etc.

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 post
Share on other sites
Please see the OP, and here. The team has been watching and wanted to add some additional feedback:

 

We will have an internal discussion about this topic next week but for now, some things I can tell right away:

 

· There would have to be some DCS Core functionality to integrate our module seamlessly. My idea was to go the same way as the Supercarrier module.

 

o IADS network could be auto-generated by just pressing the button in the Mission Editor (pre-defined or user-defined rules) – this would be available to everybody.

 

o The ability to build the network would be part of the DCS, as well as necessary functional links.

 

o Everybody would be able to build and fight the IADS, but only the module owners could run the Command & Control Interface and interact with it. In other words:

 

§ everybody will be able to generate or build it

 

§ everybody will be able to see it

 

§ everybody will be able to suppress or destroy it

 

§ only the module owner will be able to issue commands and control the network and the units.

 

· Basics of Electronic Warfare – different types of jamming and its effects (simulation). Given the overwhelming complexity of the topic, we are considering to do it as a separate module. More info will follow.

 

· We will not simulate the individual SAM systems or units – not enough publicly available information (besides, it would be incredibly boring, by our opinion). Our idea is to simulate an Air Defense system as a whole.

 

 

GET THIS 3RD PARTY APPROVED ASAP!!! (ED Should work closely with those guys to introduce EW/Jammer properly!!!)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
§ only the module owner will be able to issue commands and control the network and the units.

 

IMO this should be a part of Combined Arms instead of a separate module.

 

Other than that a proper IADS modelling sounds awesome!

 

Basics of EW also sounds awesome!

 

I understand why ED would be interested in making BoEW a paid module but I can see it having serious potential in splitting the MP playerbase and that would be bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

About the IADS module:

 

The basic features, as it's been already said by 9L, must be part of the core game. IADS are what define the doctrine of both NATO and WARPAC air forces in one way or the other so they must be accurately represented in DCS. As for the more advanced features, like controlling the IADS, it's worth to be payware imo. I don't have strong feelings about it being part of CA or not.

 

About that EW module that 9L talked about:

 

It's certainly something to have in the base game. If you need to hire a 3rd party to do it, then that's fine. But I don't think it's something that should be payware, as most of the available modules have jammers in one way or the other, and thus should have them modelled as part of the module itself. In the F-16 features list, EW is listed as something that it'll get. People has bought the F-16 knowing that it'll get EW, you know can't make an EW module and expect people to pay again for something they already paid.

 

EW is something that should be part of the base game, and should be modelled in all planes to provide the most realistic experience possible.

Main: MiG-21bis, because pocket rockets are fun

 

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Link to post
Share on other sites
· There would have to be some DCS Core functionality to integrate our module seamlessly. My idea was to go the same way as the Supercarrier module.

 

o IADS network could be auto-generated by just pressing the button in the Mission Editor (pre-defined or user-defined rules) – this would be available to everybody.

 

o The ability to build the network would be part of the DCS, as well as necessary functional links.

 

o Everybody would be able to build and fight the IADS, but only the module owners could run the Command & Control Interface and interact with it. In other words:

 

§ everybody will be able to generate or build it

 

§ everybody will be able to see it

 

§ everybody will be able to suppress or destroy it

 

§ only the module owner will be able to issue commands and control the network and the units.

 

· Basics of Electronic Warfare – different types of jamming and its effects (simulation). Given the overwhelming complexity of the topic, we are considering to do it as a separate module. More info will follow.

 

· We will not simulate the individual SAM systems or units – not enough publicly available information (besides, it would be incredibly boring, by our opinion). Our idea is to simulate an Air Defense system as a whole.

 

This said, unless there is some hidden wording I am not spotting, I can support this. I am interested in this.

 

Questions still remain, regarding the F10 map for normal users and CA slots, which can view everything real time. As well as other factors. ED really has to think this trough, decision they make can make it or break it.

 

I am hoping this doesn't end up to be another paywall and paygate, like the"free" Kuznetsov and similar

'Shadow'

 

Everybody gotta be offended and take it personally now-a-days

Link to post
Share on other sites
Please see the OP, and here. The team has been watching and wanted to add some additional feedback:

 

We will have an internal discussion about this topic next week but for now, some things I can tell right away:

 

· There would have to be some DCS Core functionality to integrate our module seamlessly. My idea was to go the same way as the Supercarrier module.

 

o IADS network could be auto-generated by just pressing the button in the Mission Editor (pre-defined or user-defined rules) – this would be available to everybody.

 

o The ability to build the network would be part of the DCS, as well as necessary functional links.

 

o Everybody would be able to build and fight the IADS, but only the module owners could run the Command & Control Interface and interact with it. In other words:

 

§ everybody will be able to generate or build it

 

§ everybody will be able to see it

 

§ everybody will be able to suppress or destroy it

 

§ only the module owner will be able to issue commands and control the network and the units.

 

· Basics of Electronic Warfare – different types of jamming and its effects (simulation). Given the overwhelming complexity of the topic, we are considering to do it as a separate module. More info will follow.

 

· We will not simulate the individual SAM systems or units – not enough publicly available information (besides, it would be incredibly boring, by our opinion). Our idea is to simulate an Air Defense system as a whole.

 

 

Based on this criteria I would buy it purely to support ED. I have no interest in controlling an IADS system but am very interested in having it as part of the battlefield.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what's about ED's own IADS implementation they have been working on for quite soem time now. Will that then get scrapped and replaced by the third-party addon?

 

Apart from the paywall-aspect, i don't think that core features should be handled by third parties in general.

Ed should finish their own implementation and then reevaluate the situation.

My personal wishlist after 2 years with dcs: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=216873

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...