Jump to content

Battlefield Productions - Third Party Content Provider, A vision for the future


Recommended Posts

DCS does lack a lot of units and ED refuses to even tweak already what is in, which is 80% of what Combined Arms needs.

Having someone, who is dedicated in creating/fixing/tweaking all ground units and making it official would be amazing.

Might as well redo ED's vehicles as well... 

The current damage model has enough depth for our sim, but it needs a lot of value tweaking, as well as weapon tweaking. If you can agree with ED to do all this, it would be amazing.

I am not a fan of the full in-depth ground vehicles. It would be a nice to have thing, but there are many other things, which would need to happen, before this feature has any viability.


Cheers.

  • Like 6

'Shadow'

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have Combined Arms and I love the module. I think it's a cool expansion of the flight sim and it has a lot of potential (already enjoyable at the moment).

 

I would gladly pay for an upgrade of the system including improved graphics, performance and multiplatform (ships included, please!) 🙂

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the vehicle ''modules'' is probably not a great investment, considering there are programs in existence that focus on that aspect to the same degree DCS does for aircraft. In the DCS environ, which is basically ''strategic'' in nature, individual vics are probably not... ideal, shall we say. From victims of airstrikes where a single jet or helo can decimate an entire column, to verrry long travel times if you're not unrealistically close to an AO (which will also inadvertently greatly increase the risk of death by air since they'll know exactly where to look)... if they take the air out of the scenario, then you're left asking why bother with DCS when there are better options more focused on that environ?

 

That all said, improving vehicle AI, vehicle damage models, and general improvements to vics across the board, including better Combined Arms integration, is a great idea that I think would be well received. The CA platoon/company level structure is probably a better focus for ''player control'' efforts than individual vehicles, fitting better with the overall ''strategic scale'' of the environment mentioned earlier and lessening the sting of individual units getting insta-obliterated in airstrikes.

 

-edit

To clarify about individual vics...

Anybody here ever play Arma? Anybody ever play Arma tanks while there's heavy helos or attackers around? Remember how frustrating that quickly became?

 

In DCS it would be 1000x worse, because the aircraft and helos would not be deliberately hobbled  for ''balance''. They wouldn't be hobbled by an arbitrary 10km view range (typically much less) for performance. You'd be getting detected, and engaged, from 10-20 miles away, by aircraft flying 30-40,000 feet above you. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, no chance to fight back. You'd usually not even be aware something was around before suddenly dying.

 

You know how helos and attackers get bloody tender arsed about the mean fighter jocks picking on their poor defenseless selves? Tankers and such would be getting it from both ends and really WOULD be defenseless.


Edited by zhukov032186
  • Like 4

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not a fan of an asset pack honestly.

 

i agree with everyone that more assets are needed, but i absolutely think that those should come for free.

same with the ground crew. nobody should pay extra for those things if they already pay for aircrafts and maps.

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

concerning the vehicle modules i strongly agree with @zhukov032186 that it would be a nightmare in public PvP multiplayer. i see absolutely no way this could be fun.

 

for singleplayer alone it would work better, but i also wonder if there aren't better sim environments to simulate vehicle warfare. i can see it work well with coop multiplayer or "milsim" type muliplayer though.

to be honest i think the original "combined arms" module by ED would be exactly what would fit dcs, if it wasn't so underdeveloped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's done well and of good quality, why not.
The infantry units are sad, we still do not have Daesh personnel in play, yet in great demand.
Staff with animated floors, as well as buildings or various objects to be placed would be a plus.
 This could leave the field open to ED to only take care of the aerial and engine parts of the game.
To see, but it is not for us to decide.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the idea concerning proberly simulated ground vehicles even though they would be mostly helpless against helos and fixed wings. That's how it is. 

 

Also, i would really appreciated airfields/airports to come alive. Crew working on aircraft, rearming, refueling etc. I always feel a bit alone on the ground :). 

 

Hope you strike a proper deal with ED. I'm more than willing to pay for such modules/asset packs. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I'm going to buy is the Airfield Assets Pack - bring on right now. It is really missed just as proper ATC. It works for Supercarrier - it will for airfields too (and SC could use some more of it too). That way players can decide if they want it and buy it but it's still optional and no harm is done to the missions if the user don't own it.

 

Paid vehicle asset packs - no, thanks. I'm fine with low poly models - just to check if it is dead yet. The rest of the World is not on par in quality terms. Save the CPU for the AI, damage, weather, guidance and flight models. As for new assets they are all very much needed but it has to be core DCS stuff. Only ED will decide how to handle this.

 

Individual vehicles - no, thanks. I don't see the future for it here.

  • Like 1

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who loves the helos (and fast-movers), I would welcome anything that improves the CA aspect very much -although as a mission-builder, I'd hope that we would not be limited by anything such as limited distribution and low use by the MP community.

 

Considering the detail in-game, I'd hope for better ground-crew and equipment than those which exist currently -something along the lines of the SC mod would be brilliant!

 

Oh, and my pref is for cold-war rather than post, being a fan of the older gen of jets etc.

 

Looking on in hope something will happen! Regards, 159th_Archer.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

159th Guards Aviation Regiment; recruiting now! http://www.159thgar.com/

We now fly all modern Jets and Helos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments so far.

Just to clarify a couple of small bits 🙂

More Detailed Ground Vehicles "The Pipe Dream":

Not sure what the take up of Combined Arms has been, but having played it, it seems like it was a great idea that was probably not fully realised for various production reasons, the frame work is there, it just needs expanding as a concept and making into something which holds enough interest to generate its own player base.

Re: the co-existence of these vehicles vs the "Airforce" - yes valid points, but I think if the ground forces became good enough it could start to generate its own player base with people running servers possibly exclusively for land war "one day", with the options of AI controlled Air Assets.

I am not sure we could provide the balance between air power and ground power and solve all those issues raised above - because that balance of "fairness" doesn't exist in the real world either, if your out cruising around in the battlefield in real life and an A10C turns up, you better hope you are on the same side, or he didn't spot you 😄

So the vision for the ground vehicles would be to include more detailed and more accurate physics, to firstly make them more interesting to drive, some interior modelling and options to change positions into those more detailed positions, more detailed damage system which is configured more consistently, switches and controls to control many more aspects of the vehicle - again to make it feel more interactive and more enjoyable to spend time in etc, as well as adding the obvious functionality improvements for certain vehicle types.

 Multicrew would be nice but completely unknown to us atm as we have not seen any of the tools and structure to make this function.
 

Model Quality:

The latest vehicles supplied by ED represent a very good balance of detail and framerate, the new BTR-80 model is very nice indeed without going crazy on the poly count, we are not looking to increase the poly count, we are looking to match what ED are doing as a reference point, what we are wanting to do is bring all the vehicles up to the same standards, and then add lots of missing vehicles.

AI Logic:

Something we are most certainly interested in looking into, how much access to potential changes we might have is an unknown quantity at this moment, within our team we have some very experienced games developers, one of those people with nearly 20yrs worth of experience working with AI assets/logic.

Content:

 

Buildings and other worldly objects, including usable terrain features are very much on the list for our plans, not only do these things add variation to the environment, they reduce repetition, but that can also provide more varied and interesting things to destroy :D, very important !

Ships was mentioned above as well, yes, that could certainly be done.

Who are Battlefield Productions ?:

First and foremost we are not a "Modding Group" , we are comprised of experienced games developers, and that isn't to undermine anything the modding community do, they often provide some of the very best content under less than ideal conditions, those people often end up in the industry at a professional level like I did many years ago.

As mentioned in the first post, we are still finding out feet here to understand how to blend our ideas with DCS eco system, and the customer base, so things are most certainly not set in stone, first and foremost we really would like to do the asset packs - the detailed vehicles thing is "thoughts for the future" and nothing more than that, so should only be considered as thinking out loud and throwing it out there for discussion 🙂

Thanks again for the thoughts shared so far.


 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There already is a small, but dedicated Combined Arms community in DCS. A lot of ex, or even current army people in it as well (from various nations). I am sure that, working with them, will be the fastest way for you to get up to speed and what is most needed


Edited by Shadow KT
  • Like 2

'Shadow'

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shadow KT said:

There already is a small, but dedicated Combined Arms community in DCS. A lot of ex, or event current army people in it as well (from various nations). I am sure that, working with them, will be the fastest way for you to get up to speed and what is most needed

Good to know, I am ex - British Army myself, I think we have a couple of other members who are ex Forces as well. We will of course reach out to people if the opportunity presents itself.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has some "branches" into DCS Ground a little empty:

- HQs, Command Posts and vehicles.

- Signal equipment.
- Artillery (towed) and ammunitions
- Logistic assets vehicles, transports, transloaders, crates. Medical assets and personal.

- Enginering (earthwork, minelaying, briding and ferry).
- Base equipment (depots, ligistic, POL, Medical) 

- infantry

- fortifications and others field defenses.

- Airbone and aeromovile equipments tools (no planes or helos).

- Electronic Combat assets.

- WMD (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) assets.

Of course vehicles, trains, UAVs and others assets.


Edited by Silver_Dragon
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Has some "branches" into DCS Ground a little empty:

- HQs, Command Posts and vehicles.

- Signal equipment.
- Artillery (towed) and ammunitions
- Logistic assets vehicles, transports, transloaders, crates. Medical personal.

- Enginering (earthwork, minelaying, briding and ferry).
- Base equipment (depots, ligistic, POL, Medical) 

- infantry

- fortifications and others field defenses.

- Airbone and aeromovile equipments tools (no planes or helos).

- Electronic Combat assets.

- WMD (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) assets.

Of course vehicles, trains, UAVs and others assets.

Yes, exactly the same kind of lists we have in mind.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Battlefield Productions said:

first and foremost we really would like to do the asset packs

It all is of course very welcome but the important question is how it will be implemented into DCS. Paid module asset pack raises mixed feelings due to it's tendency to divide community and is tough nut for mission makers - use it only for the choosen ones or not use it for all to play?


Edited by draconus
  • Like 3

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, draconus said:

It all is of course very welcome but the important question is how it will be implemented into DCS. Paid module asset pack raise mixed feelings due to it's tendency to divide community and is tough nut for mission makers - use it only for the choosen ones or not use it for all to play?

This is a core reason why we aim to provide a pricing structure which is not greedy - but inclusive, content all would hopefully "want" to purchase, but more importantly can afford to purchase without feeling resentful. We would ultimately like to see this content being viewed as "Must Have" content, maybe one day it could even be bundled with other content like maps or something - we don't know all the details or the answers yet tho.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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