Infantry - Combined Arms

[Callsign112]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

A simulator game is about, well simulating. Whether it’s truck driving or flying the basic interface would have to be first person, in the cockpit or drivers seat. That’s how reality is. 3rd person games are “arcade” games in sim-speak. Besides giving you the realistic interface, first person also enforces a realistic view especially from something like an armored vehicle. Using its turrets, sights or exposing yourself from the cupola. Third person allows an unrealistic view of your surroundings. The requirement for a game to be a sim isn’t necessary complexity, the simplified FC3 planes are still sims. But it’s gotta be a cockpit view. 

Well if you haven't tried CA yet, then maybe you should, because you can view the game world as the driver, or the gunner. That means from the drivers seat, or the gunners.

[SharpeXB]

34 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Well if you haven't tried CA yet, then maybe you should, because you can view the game world as the driver, or the gunner. That means from the drivers seat, or the gunners.

Yeah but it’s modeled to the level of the LoD you see from an aircraft outside. Like the steering wheel is octagonal polygons etc. The tanks appear to only have gunsight views. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Callsign112]

42 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

... The requirement for a game to be a sim isn’t necessary complexity, the simplified FC3 planes are still sims. But it’s gotta be a cockpit view. 

 

6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Yeah but it’s modeled to the level of the LoD you see from an aircraft outside. Like the steering wheel is octagonal polygons etc. The tanks appear to only have gunsight views. There’s another flight sim which did a much better job with tanks. 

It is still first person view, which is what you were suggesting is the definition of a SIM. So I am just responding to your questions/comments. I cant control that fact that your points change from one post to the next.

 

And that BTW is the reason why updates are being requested. We seem to agree that the vehicles could use an update.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Callsign112

[SharpeXB]

16 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

And that BTW is the reason why updates are being requested. We seem to agree that the vehicles could use an update.

Well if they update it they should go big or go home. First person operable vehicles with realistic systems and crew positions. Or else there’s no point. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Callsign112]

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well if they update it they should go big or go home. First person operable vehicles with realistic systems and crew positions. Or else there’s no point. 

 

Why don't you send that in to HQ, us Combined Arms users could really use your support on this one

[Silver_Dragon]

7 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

That is what I like about CA so much, it allows you to play RTS, first person armor, or control units from a plane. You can also as you are suggesting take on different roles including game master where you have control over both coalitions. This adds a lot of functionality especially if you are into creating your own mission content.

 

???? the old CA has none changed from 2012 and I dont see your "happy". CA has a great quantity of details that need improve, include cut the "arcade" gameplay.

 

Some missing features:
-None realistic tracks / wheels animations.
-None realistic suspensions on vehicles.

-None realistic transmission and engine manage.

-"Arcade" fire control and target designation.

- None capability to tow and deploy artillery or other assets.

- None realistic capability to transport troops on vehicles and other aircrafts / helos.

- Missing troops types to build coherent squad / platoon / company level.

- Missing specialized troops

- No coherent AI on ground troops.

- No troops / vehicle formations on small units.

- Missing realistic damage.

- Missing artillery assets and ammunition.

- Meanwhile CA has none a "ARMA" style, infantry has none sidearms, grenades, weapons assets and equipment.

- None capable to make assaults, urban warfare, build fortifications or similar.

- None realistic sea landing or riverine operations

- None minelayer or breaching operations

- Missing camouflage and smoke screens.

- Missing internal "cockpits" on vehicles and clickable cockpits (from old Dangerous Waters style / M1 Tank Platoon to a realistic vehicle module).

 

By now, the only improve planned:

- On infantry, from mocap Supercarrier crew technology to improve the visual and animations, but nothing more.

- A new "FLIR" technology with a new texture has on progress to vehicles.

- In a future, vehicles can get realistic damages improve them by new damage model

- ED has talk about some kind of "convoys" on the RTS Dynamic Campaign, but waiting about them.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[Callsign112]

@Silver_Dragon, so I am trying to understand your meaning because I realize English is not your first language. The meaning of the text you are quoting is that I like the concept CA is built on and the way that integrates with DCS World. It doesn't mean that I don't want to see it improve.

 

I don't know for certain what your position is within ED, or if you even have a position, but I realize that you seem to have an inside track on news coming from ED, which you share with this community.

 

In terms of what is being improved in CA, ED should be clear with its customers. Based on your description above, it sounds like you are stating on behalf of ED that CA hasn't changed since 2012, and it has no plans to change except for the 4 points you listed. 

 

Aside from other recent posts you made regarding vehicle improvements in CA, I took the information used in my discussion points from a recent interview with ED.

 

See Questions #15 at 47:46 and  #29 at 1:08:56 along with the responses. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't contribute to the various wish list threads on this forum, or are you directing your intent to just me?

 

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by BIGNEWY
removed deleted comment quote

[Callsign112]

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

 

???? the old CA has none changed from 2012 and I dont see your "happy". CA has a great quantity of details that need improve, include cut the "arcade" gameplay.

 

Some missing features:
-None realistic tracks / wheels animations.
-None realistic suspensions on vehicles.

-None realistic transmission and engine manage.

-"Arcade" fire control and target designation.

- None capability to tow and deploy artillery or other assets.

- None realistic capability to transport troops on vehicles and other aircrafts / helos.

- Missing troops types to build coherent squad / platoon / company level.

- Missing specialized troops

- No coherent AI on ground troops.

- No troops / vehicle formations on small units.

- Missing realistic damage.

- Missing artillery assets and ammunition.

- Meanwhile CA has none a "ARMA" style, infantry has none sidearms, grenades, weapons assets and equipment.

- None capable to make assaults, urban warfare, build fortifications or similar.

- None realistic sea landing or riverine operations

- None minelayer or breaching operations

- Missing camouflage and smoke screens.

- Missing internal "cockpits" on vehicles and clickable cockpits (from old Dangerous Waters style / M1 Tank Platoon to a realistic vehicle module).

 

By now, the only improve planned:

- On infantry, from mocap Supercarrier crew technology to improve the visual and animations, but nothing more.

- A new "FLIR" technology with a new texture has on progress to vehicles.

- In a future, vehicles can get realistic damages improve them by new damage model

- ED has talk about some kind of "convoys" on the RTS Dynamic Campaign, but waiting about them.

 

 

[BIGNEWY]

I have cleaned up the thread, please treat everyone with respect here on the forum, even if you dont agree with them

 

thanks

[Silver_Dragon]

I know and review the last ED interviews and as you say, ED expected get "some love" on CA on a future (near or far), meanwhile ED officially has none put any info about that CA improvements on "2021 and beyond" Newletter. My four points was about DCS World core feature with can improve CA has appears on other newsletters and info release by ED on the last months.

 

Actually CA has the same funtionality with was release on 2012, that was my point and you can check them. You can talk about "CA Wishlist" as I and other put them on the past years, I was very active and I like ED improve CA as same level of you like, but I have realisitc. None active movements about improvement has show on english or russian forums or official newsletters yet.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[1MajorKoenig]

This is an interesting topic. I have CA myself and really tried to like it but it is lacking in some key aspects in my view - hence why I have never played it much. 
 

In my opinion there are some elements which should be improved in the module as it is right now:

 

- path finding and AI in general 

- detection and AI

- controls and UI - it feels really clumsy to be honest. At the very least something more along the lines of how Warthunder ground units play could be an approach. Or even something a bit more sophisticated in terms of ground unit control (thinking steel beast)

- vehicle-terrain interaction just feels wrong (especially if the terrain isn’t 100% flat, i.e. mountain, humps, etc.)

- plus damage models seem extremely basic 

- plus a wish list point: give orders to AI units while 1st person controlling a ground unit 

Now with regards to infantry: I am one of those who think that it would work. I would even appreciate it - and would roughly picture it comparable to the old Operation Flashpoint games. 
 

However, given how much work needs to be done to fix the more “Core” elements of the game I am a bit undecided if that infantry portion should be the priority. 

 

[Callsign112]

45 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

I know and review the last ED interviews and as you say, ED expected get "some love" on CA on a future (near or far), meanwhile ED officially has none put any info about that CA improvements on "2021 and beyond" Newletter. My four points was about DCS World core feature with can improve CA has appears on other newsletters and info release by ED on the last months.

 

Actually CA has the same funtionality with was release on 2012, that was my point and you can check them. You can talk about "CA Wishlist" as I and other put them on the past years, I was very active and I like ED improve CA as same level of you like, but I have realisitc. None active movements about improvement has show on english or russian forums or official newsletters yet.

 

Thanks for your clarification.

[Callsign112]

32 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

This is an interesting topic. I have CA myself and really tried to like it but it is lacking in some key aspects in my view - hence why I have never played it much. 
 

In my opinion there are some elements which should be improved in the module as it is right now:

 

- path finding and AI in general 

- detection and AI

- controls and UI - it feels really clumsy to be honest. At the very least something more along the lines of how Warthunder ground units play could be an approach. Or even something a bit more sophisticated in terms of ground unit control (thinking steel beast)

- vehicle-terrain interaction just feels wrong (especially if the terrain isn’t 100% flat, i.e. mountain, humps, etc.)

- plus damage models seem extremely basic 

- plus a wish list point: give orders to AI units while 1st person controlling a ground unit 

Now with regards to infantry: I am one of those who think that it would work. I would even appreciate it - and would roughly picture it comparable to the old Operation Flashpoint games. 
 

However, given how much work needs to be done to fix the more “Core” elements of the game I am a bit undecided if that infantry portion should be the priority. 

 

I would agree with that. In terms of priority, there are a number of more pressing issues than infantry I am sure.

 

But some of the issues pointed to in my posts at least would not require a complete overhaul of the game. They are actually quite basic in terms of function.

 

Like most fixes here, they come in small patch updates. And unless an issues is pointed to, or raised, I don't see how it could ever get addressed.

 

But when I purchased Combined Arms, I didn't see the "buyer be ware" notice that stated this product will never be updated or improved, which is what is being suggested by members of this community. Its almost like you can buy it, but don't talk about it. To date, I have purchased 11 modules which are largely in support of the pilot community here. 

 

 

[Eight Ball]

"Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) 2.5 is a free-to-play digital battlefield game.

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

 

All this discussion reminds me of the P-51 release and how some people were claiming (rightfully so...to some extent) that the P51 didn't fit in DCS: wrong map, not proper enemies, be it in the air or on the ground, etc

The issue wasnt so much with DCS than with people failing to understand what ED was aiming to achieve with the game. People were focusing on what DCS was and not what it could become.

But ED has to start somewhere.

 

I've played entire liberation campaign on the Syria map using Combined Arms almost exclusively and it was fun.

Once you understand its limitations learn how to work around or work with them, CA is a solid module. And by the end of the campaign I was left wanting for more, not less.

Some people say the fact that CA is so buggy and limited is the proof that ED should drop it and focus on the flight sim part of DCS. Personally I consider it's the proof they should double down and expand its feature/capabilities.

 

I also dont understand why playable infantry seems to immediatly equates DCS:ArmA. I fully agree that expecting ED to create something even remotely close to ArmA or Squad would be...naive, to put it nicely.

But having playable infantry "CA Style" would require very little work for ED. Despite what some have claimed, it would be really easy to do because 99% of it is already in the game.

Really, all you need is a new connector on the 3d model to tell the game where the camera should be in 1st person view and create a generic overlay. Everything else has already been done.

Now, it would be a really crude implementation but at least it would be a start.

 

Finally, regarding the fact ED has said they had no intention to add playable infantry.

In the past ED said they had no intention to update the old caucasus map and yet they did

They've said  you would need to own the super carrier module in order to join a server with the SC. And yet you dont.

And so on, and so on...

 

You guys have been here long enough, you should know everything is subject to change

 

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Eight Ball

[Callsign112]

32 minutes ago, Eight Ball said:

"Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) 2.5 is a free-to-play digital battlefield game.

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

 

All this discussion reminds me of the P-51 release and how some people were claiming (rightfully so...to some extent) that the P51 didn't fit in DCS: wrong map, not proper enemies, be it in the air or on the ground, etc

The issue wasnt so much with DCS than with people failing to understand what ED was aiming to achieve with the game. People were focusing on what DCS was and not what it could become.

But ED has to start somewhere.

 

I've played entire liberation campaign on the Syria map using Combined Arms almost exclusively and it was fun.

Once you understand its limitations learn how to work around or work with them, CA is a solid module. And by the end of the campaign I was left wanting for more, not less.

Some people say the fact that CA is so buggy and limited is the proof that ED should drop it and focus on the flight sim part of DCS. Personally I consider it's the proof they should double down and expand its feature/capabilities.

 

I also dont understand why playable infantry seems to immediatly equates DCS:ArmA. I fully agree that expecting ED to create something even remotely close to ArmA or Squad would be...naive, to put it nicely.

But having playable infantry "CA Style" would require very little work for ED. Despite what some have claimed, it would be really easy to do because 99% of it is already in the game.

Really, all you need is a new connector on the 3d model to tell the game where the camera should be in 1st person view. Everything else has already been done.

Now, it would be a really crude implementation but at least it would be a start.

 

Finally, regarding the fact ED has said they had no intention to add playable infantry.

In the past ED said they had no intention to update the old caucasus map and yet they did

They've said  you would need to own the super carrier module in order to join a server with the SC. And yet you dont.

And so on, and so on...

 

You guys have been here long enough, you should know everything is subject to change

 

 

Great post, too bad there are so many mixed messages that seem to surround ED and DCS World.

 

You can read the hyper-linked text in your post, but someone is bound to come along to try and convince you that you didn't. It seems like disinformation is the new age where by repeating something long enough regardless of how inaccurate makes it true

 

Kinda makes me wonder if people with a view that the earth is flat won't actually prove their point in the end.  

[SharpeXB]

We all know what the description of DCS is from its web page

That being the case I really don’t see how Combined Arms is “the most authentic and realistic simulation of military tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible.”

I figure CA is a gateway product to introduce players who don’t own joysticks to DCS. But the truly authentic and realistic product here has always been the aircraft. 

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

This is way off topic. The topic is infantry not ground vehicles

[Callsign112]

One of the reasons why you might not see it is because at the moment, it isn't. The text reads "Our dream is to offer...".

 

Since CA has been out for some time now, and this being a wish list thread, the question was will we see playable/improved Infantry. The fact that aircraft are well supported isn't really a reason to discount someone else's desire to see other components of DCS World developed. That is what this thread is about, an element other than the flight SIM component.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

One of the reasons why you might not see it is because at the moment, it isn't. The text reads "Our dream is to offer...".

 

Since CA has been out for some time now, and this being a wish list thread, the question was will we see playable/improved Infantry. The fact that aircraft are well supported isn't really a reason to discount someone else's desire to see other components of DCS World developed. That is what this thread is about, an element other than the flight SIM component.

It’s commonly said about and by DCS is… everything is subject to change…

but realize that even the things ED is actually working on take years to complete. So the stuff they don’t have immediate plans to do? Many many many years… a DCS goal takes years. A DCS dream?

Edited May 27, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Callsign112]

Fair enough, but how does that translate into it can't be done, shouldn't be done, flying is the thing you do here?

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

Fair enough, but how does that translate into it can't be done, shouldn't be done, flying is the thing you do here?

Because flight simulation is so complex it demands all the resources. I don’t think it’s possible to make a game, especially a sim which has to be accurate and realistic, and have it encompass everything. You’d end up doing everything but none of it very well. 
 

And it’s not ED who really decides what gets made. It’s the customer. They don’t create the market, they follow it. Like they already said, if someone paid them to make whatever type of game, FPS or armor sim, they’d make one. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Callsign112]

13 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

See Questions #15 at 47:46 and  #29 at 1:08:56 along with the responses. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't contribute to the various wish list threads on this forum, or are you directing your intent to just me?

 

 

 

 

Regardless of what you think, they have already developed complex systems other than just aircraft like SAM's, and aircraft carriers for example. And if they can develop complex things like jets, less complicated things like vehicles should not be a problem. But none of this is related to the topic, so if you want to discuss what you think ED's development capabilities are, start another thread.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Callsign112

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

they have already developed complex systems other than just aircraft like SAM's, and aircraft carriers for example.

Of course SAMs and aircraft carriers are in DCS as part of the world which all revolves around the aircraft. Dude it’s a flight simulator!

 

According to where you quoted yourself, yes it appears that they do plan to make higher fidelity combat vehicles. Great! Go for it!

Edited May 28, 2021 by SharpeXB

[NineLine]

Guys, this is a wishlist thread on Combined Arms Infantry, if you support it, share your ideas, if you don't, then don't comment on it, find a thread you agree with and post there. Thanks.

[Callsign112]

8 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Of course SAMs and aircraft carriers are in DCS as part of the world which all revolves around the aircraft. Dude it’s a flight simulator!

 

According to where you quoted yourself, yes it appears that they do plan to make higher fidelity combat vehicles. Great! Go for it!

 

I still don't see what your point is. If you want to inform the community about your views on what the definition of a simulator is, then please, start another thread for yourself.

 

Yes, you seem to get that as a digital combat simulator, DCS World includes aircraft.

 

SAM's are a ground force technology that can demonstrate how ground force units are linked to air force units. A carrier is part of naval forces that can also demonstrate how that branch can be linked to air force units in the same way that the Higgins boat connects boats and boots.

 

But at this point, I am not sure where your going with this. Are you answering a question, or trying to ask one because I can't tell anymore.

 

Your discussion is less coherent as we progresses. What am I supposed to gather from your discussion when you post this "The requirement for a game to be a sim isn’t necessary complexity, the simplified FC3 planes are still sims. But it’s gotta be a cockpit view", while the official documentation of the Combined Arms module states this "Play DCS: Combined Arms as a real time strategy game, a first person armor warfare game, or direct the ground battle from the cockpit of a DCS aircraft like the A-10C Warthog, Ka-50 Black Shark, or P-51D Mustang." 

 

All I can gather from your discussion is that you don't bother to take the time to read the facts to support your comments, and that does nothing but create problems in terms of your contribution to this topic. But again, if you are not interested in contributing to this topic, please find another thread, or start your own.