Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

@Battlefield ProductionsJust a note with pricing and where things are going why not better sort out  a 3rd party developer contract deal with ED and simply add to Combined Arms as a development group instead of selling extra asset packs.

 

Combined Arms is lacking so much that it leaves Single Players wanting.

 

Now consider the development of ED's Dynamic Campaign variant looking from past milsim's it was a hit amongst simmers and then the development of maps towards building a global map its years of work and possibilities to grow in across various eras.

 

E.g.

 

  • Balkans War
  • Vietnam ...... so on

 

Also for those that think Single Player is a minority its false belief yeah multiplayer is where things are at for Squadrons but the sim just doesn't stop there in fact it can grow further from there into areas of more interaction and learning where you get more use from the actual overall sim. These are old discussions but with 3rd party help supporting a bigger vision you can use many areas of single player to improve on.

 

Although when we talk in terms of A.i and levels of complexity like....

 

Example....

  1. Recruit
  2. Cadet
  3. Rookie
  4. Veteran
  5. Ace
  6. Top Gun
  7. Major
  8. Kernel

...whatever....... etc ..... LoL

 

You can add so much realism and immersion with menu or voice comm's functions and player control A-A and A-G AWACS, ATC, JTAC, Mobile Command Centers. inland country airfields etc.

 

Where you are in a WAR and you are tasked orders and pulled in and out to support or to attack areas of threat or interest its just the same as multi-player in the sense of how you approach the sim/game and develop better insight into milsims as you build your pilot profile, also training range missions with various training airfields and tactics explored in missions scripts dynamic campaign so on.

 

The idea and use of Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) or mission in the same package and the combined use of infantry ground forces and improved interaction its just a great need, its where in past many wants were put forward but due to development status put on hold now there is an opportunity to improve and take it next level.

 

 

 

 


Edited by WRAITH
  • Haha 1

 

DCS FORUM SIG.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 291
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi Everyone, My name is Marcus from Battlefield Productions. I would like to share some ideas with the community for content we would like to bring to the DCS platform, content which we hope

A couple of points I'd like to make.     More is better and CA has been sorely neglected over recent years, so I am all in favour of a 3rd party taking ownership of this aspect of DCS, flesh

I fully support and agree with everything Battlefield Productions has suggested bringing to DCS.  Being former military and current DOD contractor, I get really tired of people referring to ARMA as re

I just wanted to drop and and mention the reason no further comment has been made is simply because we are not here to start making promises and building hype for something we can't deliver yet. That needs final agreements and contracts etc signed.

Everything we have said so far is our intent, and wishes and vision.

We hope we have made it clear from the start our vision is community centric.

We are now in the process of sorting out a sample and a design document - we will deliver that and then have a contract meeting, from that point on we would feel like we can engage in a more meaningful way with the community in terms of details and firm plans, we will not engage in talk discussing features and content and other fanciful ideas until we have the foundations in place - that is not productive to anyone.

Re: Community "fracturing" - there has already been some super good suggestions mentioned, these have been taken on board, how that will shake out in the end IDK yet, some of that equation we still need to discuss with ED.

Thanks again for the comments and suggestions, there is so much we can do if we can get all this sorted out, keeping those dreams realistic is what will count.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the "fracturing" goes, it is also important for people who buy assets that they are smoothly blended into any DCS configuration. For example, I bought DCS supercarrier, but all the DCS Hornet training missions use the basic carrier. In cases like this where missions or servers do not include the improved assets, then I am missing out on the experience I paid for. Now it takes the mission developers more effort to make all players happy.

 

From my point of view, the best options would either be to include free low detail models that are replaced by high detail models for those who own the assets, or to have a list of DCS core substitutes which automatically replace payware assets any time the user does not own them (like replacing a T-62 with a T-55). Either way, mission designers would not need to be shy about which units they include in their missions, since they would know that the missions will work for anyone regardless of asset pack configuration.

 

I am interested in the products you are discussing, but if I buy them, then I would like both mission designers and multiplayer servers to feel safe including them, so that I can enjoy the assets I pay for.


Edited by VincentLaw
  • Thanks 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I have been away from DCS for a little while, but I would fully support this (vehicles/infantry/assets). TBH, I bought combined arms/WWII assets pack with the hopes that it would be something a little more. I would love to see CA/WWII assets develop, and the suggestion here would be very welcome.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of points I'd like to make.  

 

More is better and CA has been sorely neglected over recent years, so I am all in favour of a 3rd party taking ownership of this aspect of DCS, fleshing out the unit inventory and improving the AI.

 

Regarding survivability.  I think those who say you wouldn't last 5 minutes in a ground unit are being a little disingenuous, and basing this assumption on the current state of play with CA and ground unit AI.  Firstly, thermal imaging at the moment is too perfect.  Vehicles just glow uniformly against their background.  I know ED have already proposed a rework of IR signatures which would address this.  Secondly, ground units don't just camp out in straight lines in the middle of flat fields.  So many missions have them out in the open within a mile of a waypoint which (for a cold war scenario) is incredibly unrealistic.  A 1980s ground war would not feature medium altitude CAS wheels, or GPS navigation, or TGPs.  It would be in the weeds with a paper map and the Mk1 eyeball.

 

Spot the difference...

 

DCS tanks:

CA-7.jpg

 

Real tanks:

main-qimg-180e05b0f56672a6b13124b1d5e2b6

 

image.jpg

 

These guys in a treeline are not going to be easy to see, especially at low level and 480 kts.  Take away the F10 god view and permissive high altitude TGP friendly environment and the tanks survivability increases dramatically.  The problem is as much a ground detail fidelity issue.  Improve that and so do the chances of survival.

 

Something like Mudrunner, which I appreciate uses much smaller maps would be IMHO the 'ideal' implementation of CA for DCS in terms of ground detail fidelity and wheel/mud physics.

 

mudrunner-btr3.jpg

 

244807-SpinTires-2017-05-27-20-29-31-966

 

 

 

It is also conceivable that a ground unit commander could have 1st person control of a platoon of multiple vehicles.  This multiplies the survivability and playability.  Lose a couple of your tanks to a passing 'Hog/Su-25 and you still have a couple left to fight with.

 

It would also be nice to see a rework of the damage models.  Even just a simple upgrade from mobility kills, sensor damage, crew effectiveness, to outright destruction.  A nearby MK82 certainly won't kill an MBT but could quite conceivably crack lenses, remove radio antennae or kill an unbuttoned commander, all of which would have an effect on said MBT's combat effectiveness.

 

I think the ground warfare side of DCS if thoughtfully reworked could open up the game to a whole new subset of players, who don't necessarily want to invest the time on the aircraft modules.  The MP servers and SP missions may feel very different to our current airpower-centric bias, but they would add a richness to the DCS 'World' which is currently lacking.

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Laptop Pilot. Aorus X7 V7, i7 7820HK o/c to 4.3GHz, 4k 17.3", 32GB DDR4, 1070Ti 8GB. TM Warthog, Cougar & CH Products controls, plus homebuilt panels (XBox360 when traveling). Rift S.

  NTTR, SoH, Syria, Channel, CA, FC3, A-10C & A-10II, MiG-21, F-86, M-2000, Harrier, Viggen, Yak-52, Spitfire, Gazelle, Mi-8, F/A-18, L-39, F-16, Supercarrier & Mi-24 on pre-order.

    Wishlist: Jaguar, F-117 and F-111.

      C:MO & XP11. PPL(A) IRL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lace said:

I think the ground warfare side of DCS if thoughtfully reworked could open up the game to a whole new subset of players, who don't necessarily want to invest the time on the aircraft modules. 

That is actually the important point. Asking flight sim enthusiast how they would like better simulated vehicles simply doesn't give the right results. If played in MP someone has to fly the planes and someone has to drive the ground vehicles. Those don't need to be the same gamers. They latter might right now not be interested in DCS and not playing it. That's why it might seem, that there's not much interest.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2021 at 5:55 PM, Battlefield Productions said:

...think along the lines of Combined Arms but with more depth and more realism, so for example a fully featured with multiple positions Tank with a full 3d internal model etc, and clickable interactive features & switches etc, and most importantly a more in depth and more realistic damage model, these would be proper "modules" in much the same way you currently purchase the other modules here within the DCS eco system.


 

 

7 hours ago, Lace said:

...I think the ground warfare side of DCS if thoughtfully reworked could open up the game to a whole new subset of players, who don't necessarily want to invest the time on the aircraft modules.  The MP servers and SP missions may feel very different to our current airpower-centric bias, but they would add a richness to the DCS 'World' which is currently lacking.

 

5 hours ago, sergkar said:

That is actually the important point. Asking flight sim enthusiast how they would like better simulated vehicles simply doesn't give the right results. If played in MP someone has to fly the planes and someone has to drive the ground vehicles. Those don't need to be the same gamers. They latter might right now not be interested in DCS and not playing it. That's why it might seem, that there's not much interest.

 

I highlighted the text from the OP's original post that is the most meaningful to me, and I think the combined arms approach for a Digital Combat Simulator makes the most sense.

 

Regarding infantry, I would just like to add while some here have suggested an Arma3/PostScriptum type approach, and I would not oppose that, there could be other possible avenues if that would be too big of a jump initially. Since most of DCS is focused on being plane/vehicle oriented, it would be useful and just as enjoyable if an AI infantry asset could at least realistically interact in game play.

 

Not to compare the type of game with DCS at all, but one example of decent AI behavior IMO would be something like Men of War Assault Squad2. If we had AI infantry that could defend/attack players in planes/tanks dynamically and with purpose, that IMO would add significantly to the immersive experience of DCS.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. I would buy this in a heart beat and I know alot of the community would be behind it. Period and country specific units would be fantastic. Good luck in your talk with ED. Wags, if your reading, we all want this 😃

  • Like 7
  • Haha 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

Intel I7 6700HQ,16GB RAM, Nvidia 980M GTX GE FORCE MZX, Samsung 860 Evo SSD. C920 webcam.

 

 

Modules- F15, F18, Spitfire, Persian Gulf, Normandy, WW2 assets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the continued comments, still here reading.

I think it should be said our vision is based upon what we think we can currently deliver, currently things like a proper Infantry "ala Arma3" thing is simply beyond our remit AT THE MOMENT 🙂

We want to get our foot in the door, start out with realistic goals, deliver content to the community that people like and want to purchase, and basically build a reputation and working relationship with the community and ED as our partners.

Ultimately the sky is the limit, and the limit will only be defined by sales, and then subsequent investment into the core team ( IE how much we can pay our staff and quality of staff).

We are looking for a long term involvement here, so we are actively looking to start at a realistic level and then ramp things up as we become able.

Marcus.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent! I will be there to fully support this initiative and buy whatever you bring nice to DCS!

  • Like 6
  • Sad 1
Intel Core i7-10700K - ROG Strix Z490-H Gaming - 64GB Vengance LPX - RTX 3080 Eagle OC - non-VR - single player - open beta

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

i dont get why you go around ed to try to pitch a product you dont even have, seems like poor form

you want to use "community response" to boosh an idea through? what are you going to do if the proposal gets shot down? play the audience and blame it on ed being some meaniebutts?

this is like a really dolled up version of those dev larper pipedream threads you find down in the modding section

 

ill say something good once i see something good.


Edited by probad
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 5

hahaha hey look at me i surely know more about aviation and coding than actual industry professionals hired for their competency because i have read jalopnik and wikipedia i bet theyve never even heard of google LOL

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, they are looking for interest and are in contact with ED.  I would hardly call them larpers.

 

I would ask, why are some of you so AFRAID of modeling more than just aircraft?  It's called dcs WORLD for a reason.


Edited by 3WA
  • Like 6
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2021 at 8:59 PM, Battlefield Productions said:

Thanks for the continued comments, still here reading.

I think it should be said our vision is based upon what we think we can currently deliver, currently things like a proper Infantry "ala Arma3" thing is simply beyond our remit AT THE MOMENT 🙂

We want to get our foot in the door, start out with realistic goals, deliver content to the community that people like and want to purchase, and basically build a reputation and working relationship with the community and ED as our partners.

Ultimately the sky is the limit, and the limit will only be defined by sales, and then subsequent investment into the core team ( IE how much we can pay our staff and quality of staff).

We are looking for a long term involvement here, so we are actively looking to start at a realistic level and then ramp things up as we become able.

Marcus.

I put together a little video to try and show the current state of infantry and WWII vehicles in DCS. I am certainly not the best at using the Mission Editor, but I think for the purpose of this discussion, it should be good enough to demonstrate the point. Obviously, if we compare the WWII assets pack/Combined Arms to the jet side of things here, there is a lot of room for improvement, but things are off to a really good start IMO.

 

I should also start by saying I believe that there is a much better dynamic in terms of multi-player game play if the focus remains on keeping real players in vehicles (planes/tanks/boats) with a well implemented AI asset that is able to attack/defend real players with purpose. Two teams of opposing real players, each with its own controllable AI assets has the potential to create the most immersive experience IMO.

 

So using the AI infantry in the video as an example, it would already be a huge improvement if the AI units were able to use more than just a standing position. They should be able to go prone, crouch, or use objects like trees, buildings, vehicles to hide behind when under fire so that they are not so easy to target. And I am sure it is just stating the obvious, but there should also be different types of AI infantry units to cover the spectrum of capabilities from light infantry to AT.  

 

You can also see in the video that once the AI detects an enemy unit, it stands in one spot until it is deleted, or until all the other enemy units are destroyed even when it hasn't reached its way-point yet. The attacking AI infantry should advance with the friendly armored vehicles, using other objects to hide behind as needed. The defending AI should do the same thing, but with a defensive posture.

 

If you could get AI to take cover and counter attack an enemy unit (real/AI) within its immediate area, you would really have something of value IMO. The best example I can think of would be something like the AI behavior in Men of War AS2. The game itself has nothing to do with a simulator like DCS, but watch a couple YouTube videos and I am sure you will see what I mean in terms of behavior.

 

I don't think much has to be said regarding the vehicles themselves. Just like with the jets/planes, it is all about realism in function and performance. The more realism you can put into it, the more people will value and want it. I am a big fan of one of the other WWII based armored fighting vehicle simulators on the market, and in a word, the reason is realism. It is probably not an easy thing to be able to give a computer user a sense of weight/mass from an image on the screen, but those guys have really pulled it off.

 

Good luck and I look forward to hearing this effort develop further.

 

 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very excited for this, I truly hope the ground game is enhanced as it would truly flesh out the this Digital Combat Simulator.  I have no issue in paying for ground asset packs that enhance this environment.  My dream with DCS is that someday it would be much closer to say a Arma 3 ground experience here in dcs.  Either way hope to see the fruits of your labor in the future.  
 

ps, Wags and company I believe this could be exactly the steps in right direction for the ground game.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Intel 8700k @5ghz, 32gb ram, 1080ti, Rift S

Link to post
Share on other sites

Late to this party but I Support this effort if VR is in play. I could have some fun with a Tank 3D cockpit. 
 

Good luck!

 

<S>
 

 


Edited by MegOhm_SD

Thing is....Zuckerberg is definitely an Alien... Some Kind of Grey Hybrid

 

Cooler Master HAF XB EVO Test Bench, ASUS P8Z77-V, i7-3770K @ 4.6GHz, Noctua AC, 32GB Corsair Vengeance Pro, EVGA 1080TI 11GB, 2 Samsung 840 Pro 540GB SSDs Raid 0, 1TB HDD, EVGA SuperNOVA 1300W PS, G930 Wireless SS Headset, TrackIR5/Wireless Proclip, TM Warthog, Saitek Pro Combat Pedals, 75" Samsung 4K QLED, Oculus S, Win 10

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned this in another thread, but its seems more suitable here.

Charge as much as you want for Maps and Modules- Thats fair. With trials, and free to fly we cant argue with the price of a module once we've had a go.
I'd happily pay £70 for a M1 Abrams or a Shilka, as long as it had full warfare capabilities (including the capabilities to hide from a MAV) and camouflage, but charging for Assets is stopping alot of people from coming to DCS.
Give everyone the Assets for free so we can build missions for the new maps for others to fly in.

If the mission builders, have the assets to create content, then the people will buy the Maps.
The amount of times, ive watched a WW2 action film, and thought 'Yeah- that would be cool to fly in that and do that' -Memphis Belle for example.
Only to realise that it would cost me and my friends nearly £120 in Asset packs for us all to re-enact that film.
So we just end up in an FA-18 shooting tanks in Caucasus. Or on Il-2

Another game- Hunter COTW -Avalanche gave everyone the chance to play any map so long as only the Host had paid for it.
After having the opportunity to play on different maps, I went out and bought the DLC i liked myself. I love that game.

Give the Asset Artists, a cut of each of the Maps. And please stop charging for assets.
Its the only reason im forced to dogfight in Il2, and not DCS.
Id like to bring friends to play on the Channel in a server on the TF-51 or a Warbird, but we cant do that, as it would cost each of them £30 to join the server and just fly around unarmed.
He isnt exactly made of money, and got the Spitfire for his birthday. So we go on the Aerbatics server, and we fly formation.
Usually we're bored pretty quick, before were back in the FA-18.

Having the 'Asset Pack Paywall' prevents others from playing the game.

The Channel £40
Fw 190D £50
The WW2 assets pack £30
A paid Campaign (if there is one) £12

£132 to Dogfight and drop a few bombs on occasion.

In a sale they're obviously better value, but then so is the FA-18.

 

Versus an FA-18 on Caucasus £80

Versus Il2 £40 for 6 fighters and 2 bombers

Versus the SU-25.


The Channel is normally £50, if there was a way of expanding it slightly to include more of the North Sea and a little of Netherlands, and London, and then there was a way of changing the buildings to a more Modern aesthetic (doesnt have to be sky scrapers think early 90's) we could use that Map for the Harrier, Mirage and the F-16 (Netherlands) as an alternative training map you could charge us £20 for the upgrade- Like you did with the A10CII.

The A-Pack paywall is killing the social side of WW2 multiplayer. And while it might bring in a few quid, its ultimately meant that the £30 paywall to Warbirds, has Prevented 3 other players from buying the Channel and Warbirds recently.
Look at the servers and numbers for modern aircraft, then look at the number for WW2 with the Asset Pack requirement.
I know its half price in the Sale, but even thats alot of money for them and their families during a horrendous year in recession/lock-down.


Edited by StevanJ
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Having the 'Asset Pack Paywall' prevents others from playing the game.


The A-Pack paywall is killing the social side of WW2 multiplayer. 

 

 

Well, so you want to HAVE the new assets but you want them FREE? 

 

Who is going to pay for it then?

 

As a commercial product it costs money, but nobody is forcing anybody to buy. There is enough free bits in DCS World so that MP can still be played without asset pack, right? 

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Intel Core i7-10700K - ROG Strix Z490-H Gaming - 64GB Vengance LPX - RTX 3080 Eagle OC - non-VR - single player - open beta

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

 

Well, so you want to HAVE the new assets but you want them FREE? 

 

Who is going to pay for it then?

 

As a commercial product it costs money, but nobody is forcing anybody to buy. There is enough free bits in DCS World so that MP can still be played without asset pack, right? 

To be honest, I dont care about them at all..
I could happily not take them. But having them as a requirement to enter WW2 servers is stopping others who want to play DCS- from playing the game.

Thats just how it is.

Its the same as paying for Syria then being asked to pay for the Israeli, Turkish, Iraqi and Syrian liveries.
I paid for the Assets, but i still make my Campaigns with out them, so that others can enjoy and try out the game.
 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

>> I want something.

>> I don't want to pay for it.

 

THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.

This is what destroys other major sims.  People waiting around for years for semi, hazily promised stuff that never appears because said people didn't want to pay for it.  These people aren't ED.  They are coming in to build what ED did not.  The Ground.  So you are going to have to pay them to do it, the same as you pay ED for planes.

 

If you want to play on the servers, you're going to have to buy the assets they are using.

 

The Ground is what is going to bring people to DCS.  Imagine eventually playing ARMA and CRYSIS like mods in DCS.  THAT is what is going to bring people to this sim.  And many of them will be willing to PAY for it.

 

Imagine playing something like Crysis' Power Struggle in a DCS:World mod.  Ka-50's vs. Apaches in a map with varying terrain, buildings, canyons, etc.  People running around with stingers and igla's trying to take control of various areas.  Player controlled study-level sim tanks, IFVs, APCs, SAMs, and AAA prowling the area.  A Massive Realistic Sim FPS.  A DREAM a lot of people have had for YEARS.

Yeah, I know infantry and such will probably start as a more RTS style control, like Combined Arms, but I hope to eventually reach full FPS.

 

And the more people that come in, the more DCS and the Third Parties can make.  Then, maybe the prices will start coming down a bit, to draw in more and more.


Edited by 3WA
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
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...