Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

On 1/5/2021 at 11:12 AM, draconus said:

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.

 

Yep, me too. Airfield Assets Pack, which has some animated elements to make the airfields feel more alive, day one buy! 

 

Ground assets, nah, not for me. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dawgie79 said:

Yep, me too. Airfield Assets Pack, which has some animated elements to make the airfields feel more alive, day one buy! 

 

Ground assets, nah, not for me. 

 

And that is likely to be the popular vote here as a flight sim, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for a DCS ground war side of things. You wouldn't go to a hamburger joint and claim its proof that no one wants to eat pizza. I discovered IL2 because of its Tank Crew module, and since then have purchased 4 of the flight modules. 

 

The detail that ED puts into its jet/plane modules is simply amazing. I am still focused on collecting war birds until I get a more capable system, but of the 3 I have collected so far, I can honestly say I am equally amazed by each of them. If ED put the same attention to detail in its ground related modules, I can't think of any reason why it would not be successful.  

 

But maps, super carriers, and modern jet fighters are obviously huge projects that eat up the majority of resources, so bringing in a third party to help out is probably a reasonable way to move forward.


Edited by Callsign112
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

And that is likely to be the popular vote here as a flight sim, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for a DCS ground war side of things. You wouldn't go to a hamburger joint and claim its proof that no one wants to eat pizza. I discovered IL2 because of its Tank Crew module, and since then have purchased 4 of the flight modules. 

 

I Agree,  however Il2 just delivers in such a different way despite being very low fidelity in comparison.
That analogy is wrong int that it assumes you have no cholice but to walk into 'a hamburger joint', use that same analogy in a different context. Say- A high street..
You walk down the high street and see 10 vendors selling pizza, and a single vendor selling burgers..

Id say that would give you a clear and open vision of what food was popular (or rather -what sells).

Then take a look at the servers and players we have, and ask ourselves why Il2 does so well with their game numbers both in single player on steam, and online despite us having the far superior game

 

50 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

The detail that ED puts into its jet/plane modules is simply amazing. I am still focused on collecting war birds until I get a more capable system, but of the 3 I have collected so far, I can honestly say I am equally amazed by each of them. If ED put the same attention to detail in its ground related modules, I can't think of any reason why it would not be successful.  

 


I agree that the modules are phenomenal in detail and like yourself, i have nearly all of them.
My only reasons to not owning a module, only revolve around limitations to myself in the game and others 'not buying certain modules', so id welcome anyone who can make a module that comes with 'no limitations', not just cost, but accessibility in gameplay too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now consider the fact that the other most popular "World", Arma 3, looks like it is done.  People are wishing for an Arma 4, but the engine that ran A3 is being retired, as it never properly worked, and the engine that runs Day Z is being looked at.  But Day Z can't run a big world.  And is very limited.

 

Now is the time for DCS to flesh out it's World.  Otherwise, you might as well just call it DCS: Sky.  There are a lot of gamers out there who want an Arma like World, but want a lot more realistic one, especially when it comes to the flight simulation part.  Add vehicles and infantry to this game, and you have a replacement for Arma.  That will bring in a LOT of players, many of whom will become interested in the flight simulation, especially helicopters and attack jets such as the A-10.  Flight wise, I would say you are nearing the limit of what people want to buy for fighter aircraft.  How many more fighter aircraft are there to model, that people actually want to buy? F-16 / F-18 are done.  I hear the F-15E is being done.  Now, you need to start looking at bombers, attack aircraft, and helicopters.

 

Now is the time to start developing the Ground and vehicle modules.  Stryker, M1 Battle Tank, M2 Bradley, BTR-90, Artillery, etc.

 

Start first with Ground assets that don't just stand there like card board cutouts.  And we need MUCH more variety.    MUCH better AI.

 

Now is the time to start bringing this sim from niche to Popular.


Edited by 3WA
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, 3WA said:

How many more fighter aircraft are there to model


Here you go..
I count 1312, So were at about 2%.
Hope this helps..


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fighter_aircraft
 

39 minutes ago, 3WA said:

How many more fighter aircraft are there to model, that people actually want to buy? F-16 / F-18 are done


Also, id really like to purchase different variants, like the two seat EA18G, and the Super Hornet.
And id also like Russia's number one WW2 ground attack aircraft the Ilyushin Il-2 (ironically).
Just to name a few. But im spitballing.
Arma on DCS would never happen. Tank modules might.

 


Edited by StevanJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StevanJ said:

 

I Agree,  however Il2 just delivers in such a different way despite being very low fidelity in comparison.
That analogy is wrong int that it assumes you have no cholice but to walk into 'a hamburger joint', use that same analogy in a different context. Say- A high street..
You walk down the high street and see 10 vendors selling pizza, and a single vendor selling burgers..

Id say that would give you a clear and open vision of what food was popular (or rather -what sells).

Then take a look at the servers and players we have, and ask ourselves why Il2 does so well with their game numbers both in single player on steam, and online despite us having the far superior game

 


I agree that the modules are phenomenal in detail and like yourself, i have nearly all of them.
My only reasons to not owning a module, only revolve around limitations to myself in the game and others 'not buying certain modules', so id welcome anyone who can make a module that comes with 'no limitations', not just cost, but accessibility in gameplay too.

No the analogy was quite accurate. You can't tell by going into a burger joint who in the crowd likes pizza. Some of the patrons no doubt will like pizza, but they are sitting there because of the burger they are about to eat. DCS is primarily a flight sim. There is no doubt that some here are into/will support ground vehicles, but the vast majority here come to fly. Offer ground vehicles/infantry with the same level of detail and ED will not only convince some of the regulars here to support it, but they will attract a new type of customer that is likely to swing the other way in terms of support once they are in. ie came for the armor, and learned to fly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

No the analogy was quite accurate. You can't tell by going into a burger joint who in the crowd likes pizza. Some of the patrons no doubt will like pizza, but they are sitting there because of the burger they are about to eat. DCS is primarily a flight sim. There is no doubt that some here are into/will support ground vehicles, but the vast majority here come to fly. Offer ground vehicles/infantry with the same level of detail and ED will not only convince some of the regulars here to support it, but they will attract a new type of customer that is likely to swing the other way in terms of support once they are in. ie came for the armor, and learned to fly.


We can go back and forward like this forever, the analogy wont work, because some will come to fly modern helicopters, some for Warbrids, some for Cold war, some wont have maps etc, the list goes on, there are too many differing variables, and in the way your analogy looks at 'food flavours' in a 'burger joint'.
Choice becomes more abundant with each module thats released, and only ED will have the real world figures to tell us 'who prefers burgers to pizza' and with those numbers, they can pick and choose where to put the 'most profitable' development, and where to 'outsource' the stuff that would sit on the fence..
I cant imagine ED looking at figures and outsourcing stuff thats not profitable, its easier to sell the work at a price.

The common subject we have is flight, or in your analogy 'food'. Just like if you were hungry, youd go to Just eat for 'food'. Youre suggesting, that choice of restaraunt wouldnt be available, and its incorrect.
Luckily, thanks to the modules we have, we have an incredible amount of choice. We're not limited to a single module, or even a single game, the choice is wide and far.
Once you arrive at 'Just eat/ DCS' you pick what it is you want to 'eat/do'.. But essentially, we all want to fly/eat.
Any module that increases that immersion towards flight is definitely wanted. The problem were having is deciding where that line ends. Some dont want the asset packs, some do, some just want a certain asset pack.
And so the discussion goes on.

Your analogy assumes, we're ordering from one restaraunt when in fact, the number of players on this platform have already made and established the game by purchasing the modules and creting a 'market' for supply and demand, they know what they like and now a market exists for a certain 'genre' of aircraft (cold war, WW2, Modern, choppers etc).
You cant eliminate the choice of 'restaraunts' on offer, because DCS has such a diverse and different amount of modules.
And such an example would never exist anymore.
Use the same analogy in Il2 'I bought Il2 and no one seems to like the FA18', well thats not possible, because youve taken away the choice and reason to why youd be in that game in the first place. Youd never be in a burger place complaining that they dont sell pizza. In the same way, youd never buy the Huey, and complain you cant use the Hornet.
It cant work, because its biased towards Il2, in the same way youre biased towards 'being in the burger joint'.

Anyway- we are now going wildly off topic.
Lets just say, youre right and leave it there.
And hope we get some feedback soon, so we can start figuring out where to spend our money.
And how else we can can enjoy the game.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only a little detail, from 2012 ED put DCS as a Air / Land / Sea simulator, with diferent eras and content, not only Air Simulator, in fact the CA module was a tiny intent to put land vehicles on (based on a profesional JTAC trainer to the british army). The same situation has been on the SuperCarrier. That has open the Naval API, not only to build a carrier module, they can use to build other ships "near realistic". BP has not only 3rd Party centred on land environment, has other centred on build a Air Defense Network and EW environment, and ED has talk if the military like build a FPS.

  • Like 1

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not here to prove I'm right and your wrong, but the point that seems to have tripped you up was really meant for the person who stated an interest in ground crews for airfields over ground vehicles. I was just pointing out that his stated interest is likely to be the popular vote here being that DCS is primarily a flight sim. I never mentioned anything about choice and which game/sim sells more. I was just pointing out that most of the people that come here are into flying stuff, so the ground crew for airfields is probably a shoe-in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Only a little detail, from 2012 ED put DCS as a Air / Land / Sea simulator, with diferent eras and content, not only Air Simulator, in fact the CA module was a tiny intent to put land vehicles on (based on a profesional JTAC trainer to the british army). The same situation has been on the SuperCarrier. That has open the Naval API, not only to build a carrier module, they can use to build other ships "near realistic". BP has not only 3rd Party centred on land environment, has other centred on build a Air Defense Network and EW environment, and ED has talk if the military like build a FPS.

But I think it is still fair to say that something like Combined Arms has received a lot less attention then the maps/jets/planes/choppers. That is what makes the OP's announcement so exciting for me. It has opened the possibility that the ground war side of things will see more development.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Only a little detail, from 2012 ED put DCS as a Air / Land / Sea simulator, with diferent eras and content, not only Air Simulator, in fact the CA module was a tiny intent to put land vehicles on (based on a profesional JTAC trainer to the british army). The same situation has been on the SuperCarrier. That has open the Naval API, not only to build a carrier module, they can use to build other ships "near realistic". BP has not only 3rd Party centred on land environment, has other centred on build a Air Defense Network and EW environment, and ED has talk if the military like build a FPS.

Awesome!  I really want to see you guys start building your World!  And I'm sure many militaries would be interested in what you have to sell.  As will Arma players, who are now realizing it's over for that game.  They're looking for something new now, and DCS would be right up their alley, when the Ground is finally developed.  Flight sim only is DEAD.  Arma tried to make a World, but it was never realistic.  In fact, it was pretty bad.  You guys are WAYYY ahead of what others have tried to do, and I would say you have achieved the hardest part of it - the Flight Simulation.  The new clouds are just amazing!  I can hardly wait to see what you and 3rd parties will do with the Ground, as being a Shark pilot, that is where I spend all my time, zipping among the trees.

4 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

But I think it is still fair to say that something like Combined Arms has received a lot less attention then the maps/jets/planes/choppers. That is what makes the OP's announcement so exciting for me. It has opened the possibility that the ground war side of things will see more development.

Yeah, that's because Combined Arms is a joke that is worse than Arma.  More like a small experiment that never got developed.  Even I'm not interested in it, in it's current state.

 

If you build it, they will come.


Edited by 3WA
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, please, you're running in circles by saying all the same thing again and again.
One of you will buy anything unless it comes with paid DLC assets that prevent players to join the server using it - we get it - no point in repeating that.

One of you dream of DCS FPS - it was pointed out many times in this very thread why it is very far from that to happen in near future.

What both of you does not seem to grasp is how all the mentioned games are different from each other and what target players they aim for. I presume that even if all DCS modules were free and there were highly realistic playable tanks and soldiers added right now we won't reach the same millions of users as other games simply because it's not what most players crave for in the first place, at least not in current engine and environment.

Please manage your expectations. DCS moves on and we all witness that but the impovement and development (with bug squashing on its way) is a slow process and it takes time. I'm glad to be part of it and look forward to the future with optimism but for sure there will be no sudden massive flow of users because of your x feature added.


Edited by draconus
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 7

🖥️ i3-10100F 3.6-4.3GHz, 32GB DDR4 2666, GTX970 4GB, SSD SATA3   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B   🚢 Supercarrier    🌍 NTTR, PG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2021 at 5:43 PM, 3WA said:

Yeah, same thing I understood.  Right now, it looks like they want to start with better AI and models for ground troops / vehicles, and then get into Vehicle modules later when they are more comfortable with the DCS ground and code.  Sounds good to me!  VERY WELCOME!!

I think most of us are good with this for now.  First, much better assets and AI, then later, start thinking about making vehicle modules.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO DCS could really use a 3rd party team just working on including more modern AI assets. Just air units alone would be a huge job. 

Tankers:

A310 MRT (RCAF, Luftwaffe)
KC-767 (JASDF, USAF, Italy)
Voyager KC.Mk 2 (RAF, RAAF)

 

 

Cargo:

 

C-5

Updated C-17

C-130J

C-160

C-27

A400

Y-20

AN-124

CN-235

C-2

AN-22

 

 

Trainers:

 

T-6 II (USAF, RCAF, RAF, IAF, NZAF, and more...)

T-38 (USAF, NASA)

T-50 (ROKAF, RTAF, Iraq)

T-4 (JASDF)

Hawk 100/200

 

 

Helicopters:

 

CH-148 (RCAF)

AW101 (RCAF, RAF, Denmark, Norway, JMSDF, Italy)

Bell 412 (RCAF, RAF, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, ROKAF, and more...)

H-60 Variants

Lynx

OH-6

T-129

Z-10

Z-20
NH-90
 


Edited by Slick_441
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I had a lot of fun with Combined Arms in single player in the Nevada map driving a vehicle in a lightly armed convoy of a dozen or so, on a 3-hour trek along highways in the Nevada desert, "to get supplies to a remote outpost".  I set things up in ME so that the vehicle convoy was attacked about 4 times by pairs of AI aircraft.  But one thing I did was restrict the use of air-to-surface missiles...just guns, bombs and rockets.  I also had the convoy encounter some enemy ground forces, including some T-55 tanks...that was brutal.  But with improved AI and improved vehicle details it could be oh so much better!

Then I switched to using Rift S VR goggles...where the operating of ships' guns and ground vehicles is visually/functionally broken and unusable, with no apparent plans to fix it.

I use VR goggles exclusively in DCS, flying aircraft.  It is so much more immersive.  Head tracking with Rift S is nearly perfect, 1-to-1.  If I want to look behind me, I have to physically turn my body around, as I'd have to in a real aircraft (no swivel chair).

 

I think, driving and manning guns on ground vehicles would be awesome in VR with detailed vehicles.  I had always wanted AI to drive the Humvee while I manned the 50-cal up top.  Or to be able to drive with AI manning the gun.  As is, it seems like once you took control of the vehicle, you were the sole occupant.

 

You might want to get your feet wet in DCS by first supplying animated, AI ground equipment, vehicles and personnel on an airbase...Nellis AFB, for instance.  But how will that impact framerate?  It's such a large base, I usually only use a small part of the ramp.  If there were animated ground crews and vehicles around enough ramp space for 12 to 16 aircraft, that might not be too hard on framerate?  I would think that would really bring the airbase to life and realism.  Doesn't have to be overly done.  Just what you might see on a real airbase.  Ground crew to direct you out of parking to the taxiways and back into parking on return.  Creech AFB might be a better place to start.

 

But it sounds like your aim is surface combat.  If it worked in VR, I'd love to get back to driving some vehicles...realistically detailed vehicles with functional systems...same as the aircraft.  Your fan-base for this might be limited, though.  Improvement of AI would be very important, I think.  Even if the AI had to be run on a separate computer, to simulate all the ground units, I'd get a 2nd computer for that.

 

I don't suppose you would be interested in creating a bunch of WWII, Pacific Theater, surface combat ships for DCS?

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/5/2021 at 6:02 AM, draconus said:

Guys, please, you're running in circles by saying all the same thing again and again.
One of you will buy anything unless it comes with paid DLC assets that prevent players to join the server using it - we get it - no point in repeating that.

One of you dream of DCS FPS - it was pointed out many times in this very thread why it is very far from that to happen in near future.

What both of you does not seem to grasp is how all the mentioned games are different from each other and what target players they aim for. I presume that even if all DCS modules were free and there were highly realistic playable tanks and soldiers added right now we won't reach the same millions of users as other games simply because it's not what most players crave for in the first place, at least not in current engine and environment.

Please manage your expectations. DCS moves on and we all witness that but the impovement and development (with bug squashing on its way) is a slow process and it takes time. I'm glad to be part of it and look forward to the future with optimism but for sure there will be no sudden massive flow of users because of your x feature added.

 

I understand and agree with you point regarding the circular argument that developed, but if your presumptions are correct, then it couldn't spell good news for ED and their DCS product. I would think if DCS had realistic playable tanks, smart AI soldiers, and offered all of its modules for free that they would easily exceed the user base of any comparative products. I share your optimism and look forward to future improvements, but I think it is fair to say that what sells jets are all the x features added.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2021 at 8:40 PM, Callsign112 said:

And that is likely to be the popular vote here as a flight sim, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for a DCS ground war side of things. You wouldn't go to a hamburger joint and claim its proof that no one wants to eat pizza. I discovered IL2 because of its Tank Crew module, and since then have purchased 4 of the flight modules. 

 

The detail that ED puts into its jet/plane modules is simply amazing. I am still focused on collecting war birds until I get a more capable system, but of the 3 I have collected so far, I can honestly say I am equally amazed by each of them. If ED put the same attention to detail in its ground related modules, I can't think of any reason why it would not be successful.  

 

But maps, super carriers, and modern jet fighters are obviously huge projects that eat up the majority of resources, so bringing in a third party to help out is probably a reasonable way to move forward.

 

I never said anything about proof for this or that. I merely stated I would only buy ground crews for AFBs. Nothing more, nothing less. What other people want or don't want isn't my concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, dawgie79 said:

I never said anything about proof for this or that. I merely stated I would only buy ground crews for AFBs. Nothing more, nothing less. What other people want or don't want isn't my concern.

I realize that. The example I gave was in support of my opinion that most here are more likely to show interest in ground crews for air fields before they would support crews for ground vehicles. So my comment is not directed at you alone, but includes in a general sense the community. It was in that context that I was simply pointing out that because we are largely a flight sim community doesn't mean the ground war side of DCS wouldn't/couldn't grow. I was using the word "you" figuratively, I should have wrote "a person wouldn't go...".

 

My apologies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a lot of players on here are not realizing, is that there is a ground war going on already.  Helicopter and Attack Jet pilots are not up in the clouds like all the jets.  We're at most a few 100 feet above the ground ( usually MUCH closer ), and so yeah, we're looking for much more intelligence, infantry and vehicle variety, and scenery down there.  Being a Shark pilot, a lot of times, I'm skimming about 7 or 8 feet above the ground, keeping trees between me and the enemy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Callsign112I think ED knows well how niche their market is. What I'm trying to say is that most gamers don't find fun in super realistic products.

By "feature x" I meant all those general things that users use to say DCS lacks be it AI, ground units, dynamic campaign, weather, ATC... you name it.

🖥️ i3-10100F 3.6-4.3GHz, 32GB DDR4 2666, GTX970 4GB, SSD SATA3   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B   🚢 Supercarrier    🌍 NTTR, PG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, draconus said:

@Callsign112I think ED knows well how niche their market is. What I'm trying to say is that most gamers don't find fun in super realistic products.

By "feature x" I meant all those general things that users use to say DCS lacks be it AI, ground units, dynamic campaign, weather, ATC... you name it.

Well, there are the gamers like me.  I played Arma with the ACE 2 mod, which tried to introduce a lot more realism into the game.  A lot of us liked using that mod.  The big problem for us Arma people was that we could never get any real flight sim in.  It was FARRR beyond the abilities of that engine.  Before that I played the UT mod Infiltration, and now Ground Branch ( realistic Infantry ).  However, neither UT nor Arma ever had realistic vehicles which a lot of people wanted also.  So this time, if we start looking at the Ground, we will just be approaching the problem from the other end, starting with flight sim.  And to me, the flight sim is what no one could ever do.  So, if you look at it, you guys have done the HARDEST part of the simulation.  When you say "gamers" above, you're talking about the "Battlefield" types, and yeah, most of those just want an Xbox like game where they can blow steam.  But there are many of us Arma, Ground Branch, Squad, etc. types who ARE looking for something more.  A Realistic Arma type simulation.

 

But for right now, I hope to get better ground graphics, a little more imagination in the maps, definitely MUCH smarter AI, and more realistic infantry groups, vehicle assets - including SAMS, Command and Control Networks, Electronic Warfare, etc.  Realistic groups of vehicles and infantry that should go together, like Motorized and Mechanized Infantry groups, etc., that can be placed around the map in the Editor.  At least this would start pushing towards more of an RTS sim down on the Ground, without having to get into vehicle modules and FPS yet.  You've done a good job with the Sky (those new clouds are gorgeous), now start taking a look at the Ground, which has been really neglected.


Edited by 3WA
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2021 at 5:50 PM, Callsign112 said:

I realize that. The example I gave was in support of my opinion that most here are more likely to show interest in ground crews for air fields before they would support crews for ground vehicles. So my comment is not directed at you alone, but includes in a general sense the community. It was in that context that I was simply pointing out that because we are largely a flight sim community doesn't mean the ground war side of DCS wouldn't/couldn't grow. I was using the word "you" figuratively, I should have wrote "a person wouldn't go...".

 

My apologies.

Thanks for the clarification mate. And no need to apologize, we're all friends here ain't we? 🙂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2021 at 11:24 PM, 3WA said:

Well, there are the gamers like me.  I played Arma with the ACE 2 mod, which tried to introduce a lot more realism into the game.  A lot of us liked using that mod.  The big problem for us Arma people was that we could never get any real flight sim in.  It was FARRR beyond the abilities of that engine.  Before that I played the UT mod Infiltration, and now Ground Branch ( realistic Infantry ).  However, neither UT nor Arma ever had realistic vehicles which a lot of people wanted also.  So this time, if we start looking at the Ground, we will just be approaching the problem from the other end, starting with flight sim.  And to me, the flight sim is what no one could ever do.  So, if you look at it, you guys have done the HARDEST part of the simulation.  When you say "gamers" above, you're talking about the "Battlefield" types, and yeah, most of those just want an Xbox like game where they can blow steam.  But there are many of us Arma, Ground Branch, Squad, etc. types who ARE looking for something more.  A Realistic Arma type simulation.

 

But for right now, I hope to get better ground graphics, a little more imagination in the maps, definitely MUCH smarter AI, and more realistic infantry groups, vehicle assets - including SAMS, Command and Control Networks, Electronic Warfare, etc.  Realistic groups of vehicles and infantry that should go together, like Motorized and Mechanized Infantry groups, etc., that can be placed around the map in the Editor.  At least this would start pushing towards more of an RTS sim down on the Ground, without having to get into vehicle modules and FPS yet.  You've done a good job with the Sky (those new clouds are gorgeous), now start taking a look at the Ground, which has been really neglected.

 

Being primarily a flight SIM, it comes as no surprise that the vast majority of energy has been focused on serving the flying interests of the DCS customer base. But I couldn't agree more with you, I would really like to see the ground force side of things develop further.

 

Based on the number of successful ground war themed games that have come to market, I think it is safe to say that reasons not to develop the ground war side of DCS have nothing to do with a lack of public interest. If we take the competitor flight sim to DCS as a recent example, they started a tank crew module as an in-house project with almost no committed resources as the story goes, and two years later according to the story as it continues to be told, it is that franchise's fastest growing segment today. WWII armored fighting vehicle games/simulators are very popular.

 

While Battle Field Productions works on getting its feet wet in the DCS ecosystem, I was wondering whether ED would see any value in developing its WWII assets pack into more of a "Tank Crew" module? ED already has the maps, vehicles with decent external view, a robust mission editor, and more importantly, the foundation framework for an AI infantry, which could be seen as a major advantage to the DCS game set. 

 

Having fully detailed interiors is great, but it basically comes down to being eye-candy in terms of actual game play. If it would lighten the programing/development load a bit, fully detailed interiors wouldn't be essential. What is more important would be to have the function and controls of each station modeled. It would be enough to have just the periscope/visor view of each position, and the open hatch view for those that had them. Something closer to PostScriptum works very well for immersive game play, if you also include an accurate damage model, physics model for gun penetration, and running gear/tracks.

 

It would be great to see this product develop further.

 

 

11 hours ago, dawgie79 said:

Thanks for the clarification mate. And no need to apologize, we're all friends here ain't we? 🙂 

:thumbup:


Edited by Callsign112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

Based on the number of successful ground war themed games that have come to market

 

That may be a little off topic, but I'm actually looking for a good tank sim. So far the best I found is ArmA 3, but it somehow feels odd. CA feels actually pretty good but lacks too much to be called a sim (with the missing campaigns it can't even really be called a game). What else I could find, but didn't try also seems to be not the right thing.

 

Here on DCS I think it could be some 3 to 6 years until anything better surfaces - if at all - so if anybody has tips. You can just PM to not clutter the thread. 🙂

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...