Mi-24 Facing the reality.

[Mars Exulte]

15 minutes ago, Lace said:

 

Smoking and moving.  If of course, as you rightly say they see them coming.

 

 

 

  #1 afaik DCS vehicles don't deploy smoke, they also generally don't evade or ''think'' at all.

 

  #2 I was mostly thinking about the context of PvP helos, which can't smoke

[Apok]

DCS vehicles deploy smoke but after they are hit. But not preemptively and cant be by player. Kinda annoying.

[Mars Exulte]

19 minutes ago, Apok said:

DCS vehicles deploy smoke but after they are hit. But not preemptively and cant be by player. Kinda annoying.

  Really? I've never really noticed that. Of course, if they don't survive the first hit, they wouldn't be able to pop smoke. Still, I've seen the convoy ''scatter'' sort of, for a few minutes, where they sit still, then after a few minutes resume their drive. I never noticed smoke popping, though. That's cool, but sounds like it's not good for much.

[Northstar98]

6 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

  Really? I've never really noticed that. Of course, if they don't survive the first hit, they wouldn't be able to pop smoke. Still, I've seen the convoy ''scatter'' sort of, for a few minutes, where they sit still, then after a few minutes resume their drive. I never noticed smoke popping, though. That's cool, but sounds like it's not good for much.

 

Yeah they make a massive puffy white cloud in certain circumstances, like when they receive glancing blows (typically with the gun). 

[Lace]

40 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

 

  #1 afaik DCS vehicles don't deploy smoke, they also generally don't evade or ''think'' at all.

 

  #2 I was mostly thinking about the context of PvP helos, which can't smoke

 

Like many of the CA elements, reaction to effective enemy fire requires improvement.  Maybe one day.

[rrohde]

On 3/27/2021 at 10:54 AM, BioZ said:

Don't get me wrong, I think Mi-24D is a great helicopter, I will certainly pre-order it and probably enjoy learning and flying it.

 

 

This is what DCS is really all about - a study sim to get into amazingly detailed modules of aircraft from various eras and learn to fly them (and to learn their sensors, weapon systems, etc along with it). 

[Rubberduck85]

 
This is what DCS is really all about - a study sim to get into amazingly detailed modules of aircraft from various eras and learn to fly them (and to learn their sensors, weapon systems, etc along with it). 

It is true now, It should however be a digital COMBAT simulator and focus equally on what happens outside the cockpit as much as it focuses on what happens inside. They'll get there eventually (i hope...).

OP has a point, this is the first true gunship coming to DCS. As it's not a dedicated tank killer, its role is mainly air assault/ground support/being cool. Strafing/rocket runs its routine.

What is outside the hind in an appropriate hind scenario ( not super high tech)

*Few infantry models

*A cheating AI that snipes you with ungodly accuracy with BMPs, magically aware of you presence any time/weather

*A definitely not user friendly mission editor to transform targets into moving targets

*Not so good damage model for ground units

*Beautiful maps (especially sirya)

All items of which ED is aware and working on.

So yes, in the beginning the hind will be great for learning to fly a gunship in it's marvelously rendered cockpit, maybe not so for fighting as one. Not everyone plays dcs just for the study aspect, also for the combat one And we can only hope it improves.

Regards


Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

[Fri13]

On 3/29/2021 at 11:36 AM, Pikey said:

but.. are you really terrified? no.

 

 

The Escape From Tarkov has 20 minutes penalty when you die. You literally sit in the main screen unable to play with your main character, and you lose everything that you brought with you in the game when connecting. It adds a lot more "fear" (and rage) to players if they fail in the game. 

 

Famous Dark Souls game has hideous difficulty level for many, but it is the interesting part really, thanks from copying the original Rogue from 1980 with a permanent death. 

More you played, better you became, but each time spent to it meant that death is permanent and you will need to start from the begin again. 

 

In a RTS games where one can just build and produce infinite amount of units, it becomes quickly boring as the challenge is different than games that you have limited resources. Example for the time of release the Ground Control was major player as you had what you had and you didn't really get more. So you tried to save every and each unit you could as you couldn't just build more. 

 

In the last interview from Wags in CasmoTV the talk was about all the background strategical elements from the reinforcements to factories and productions etc. Meaning that the RTS part of the DCS World (Combined Arms) will be (at least should be part) partially with limited units and limited resources and all. 

 

What we need in the DCS more and more is that there will be like a 60 various aircraft on the carrier and no more, nothing to add unless someone can fly them from another location there to keep the number up. Like 24 Hornets, four E-2, couple C-2 transporters and few helicopters. In a multiplayer server such would make people to value far more about each airframe they are flying. Just losing them would mean a lot difference at later phase of server mission. Same thing as giving limited amount of missiles would mean every shot should count, and every bomb. There would always be those who wouldn't care do they use 10 fighters for stupid things just to get fancy few kills, why there should be penalties for the player ID what they can do. Like promote players to give them more action time by shortening their routes to fight. Give them more challenging and interesting missions to complete. Little RPG elements here and there and you get people to eventually value more of the time they spend and what they do.

 

Having a such optional server setting that can be enabled for those who are ready for challenge and want to avoid air quake behavior, it could be welcoming for many. 

The ground units values would change a lot when you can't just spawn more or produce more so quickly. Transporting them from otherside of the map to one side is not an easy task. Plan a routes how to transport them first on trains or roads (we need such cars) and then get them moved closer to required positions etc. A RTS commander on the ground that loses units means they open up possibility for enemy to take advantage of that. 

 

But nothing works as long there is no risk to the player itself for losing something. You never can get anything about fear for life, but you can get fear for able to play the game on the server. To have a reputation to be playing with servers and missions that requires higher reputation, as losing such high reputation pilots is threatful for many pilots who care about statics and online ladders comparisons to others.

 

We have various other problems like players jumping on opposite side to take notes where their units are, and then jump back to go attack at them. Again something that would be impossible like with a ED ID to be used for server side registration of virtual pilots, that you need to pick up your side on the server you play. Adding various other elements like real fog of war, that no pilot can see everything than just the mission they are opting-in, intelligence reports are vague and they need to do the work. So limiting the access to instant all-around information would be impossible even on the ground commanders who only knows what their units does and that with delayed communications and vague reports etc. 

 

 

[Fri13]

On 4/9/2021 at 3:37 AM, Mars Exulte said:

  This is actually something I'm very interested in attempting to exploit. By carrying only these, it greatly reduces weight, making hover sniping a viable tactic. Even if the target sees them coming, they can't be decoyed (although hitting an evasive target will probably be very difficult).

 

If we would have proper ground units behavior, you wouldn't be spotting those vehicles so easily. And when they roll behind their cover, they spend there time just enough for gunner to acquire a target and shoot at it, confirm the shot and roll back in the cover. 

Once the helicopters are spotted (by vehicles crews or someone else informing it to them) they would change tactics, you have people in observation for the ATGM launches even and utilize smoke screens effectively. They might not be able jam your guidance, but they can blind you so you don't know where to aim inside a large smoke screen in witch cover they roll back to cover. This of course if the enemy has not chosen so stupid position that they give for enemy full access to use their longest range weapons to destroy them....

 

 

[Fri13]

On 4/9/2021 at 4:14 PM, Mars Exulte said:

  Really? I've never really noticed that. Of course, if they don't survive the first hit, they wouldn't be able to pop smoke. Still, I've seen the convoy ''scatter'' sort of, for a few minutes, where they sit still, then after a few minutes resume their drive. I never noticed smoke popping, though. That's cool, but sounds like it's not good for much.

 

The smoke lasts only like 5 seconds and then it is gone. It is a 6 floor building size and will only block the IR vision for little further period than visual. 

But it doesn't work really. It is just a reminder "You hit it, but didn't destroy it". 

 

A actively used it would be very effective. Especially when they would use it as cover to move around. 

Your laser mavericks would go dud and fly past with the smoke screen as they lose the spot. 

The laser guided bombs would drop to last known location. IR mavericks would lose locks and become useless.

Visually guiding something would be difficult as you don't see where they would move behind the smoke screen. 

 

Now they just sit the 600 seconds (default, you can change it) scattered around as you say and pretends to be in a tower defense game.

Like there is one nice simple script to make ground units to stop firing if they get first under fire, like suppressing them with cannon or rockets. It adds little more value for unguided weapons at short ranges when they don't snipe you down on the second.  

[SparxOne]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

The Escape From Tarkov has 20 minutes penalty when you die. You literally sit in the main screen unable to play with your main character, and you lose everything that you brought with you in the game when connecting. It adds a lot more "fear" (and rage) to players if they fail in the game. 

 

Not that it's very important i'll admit, but i had to correct you here haha  As a long term EFT player, i can tell you that you do not have a 20 minutes penalty when you die with your main character that blocks you from playing another match/raid/game. You have your main character and the SCAV character

The main character is the one with whom you'll do your quest and have the main progression of the game of coarse. I'm not gonna go into more details because too long and we're on DCS forums, so who cares about EFT lol.

SCAV character is the one that has a cool down timer of 20 minutes if you die with it. But the SCAV character is very different from the main character and is considered a bonus "free" character you get to use every 20 minutes to bring back loot, once again, not gonna go deeper into details as not relevant to DCS forums...

 

But if there is one thing that i could link to DCS as a feature that could potentially make it even better, it would certainly be the risk of death, just like in EFT. That's to me probably the feature that makes the game stand out the most, the stress and adrenaline you get when entering a gunfight knowing very well that death would mean loosing that hard earned gear you have on yourself and therefore starting either from scratch or picking a spare one you have in your stash (But of coarse not infinite). It makes the fights much more challenging and decision making very important ! Do i wanna risk my gear and fight ? Or should i flee and stay safe to fight another day ?

The whole aspect of being punished for dying can of coarse be very frustrating in certain situations, yet it pushes you to have a certain play style and mindset if you're willing to keep playing the game, therefore anyone coming to troll or play carelessly will simply loose interest very fast because of how fast they'll hit the bottom of the pit and be rendered kinda useless facing someone who did take it serious enough.

[S. Low]

I’m not active in dcs multiplayer but I’ll say that criticizing “air quakers” for playing a perceived wrong way on a server designed for air quake doesn’t seem right to me.

 

We can all join groups that focus on more realistic mission design if we want to and play on private servers and commit all sorts of time to that realism. Years ago (before my kids) I had devoted probably a couple thousand hours to arma realism squads, writing instructional training documents and leading in game training, going on mock deployments, getting chewed out and receiving in game discipline for doing something in game that would have political consequences in real life , etc etc.

 

Ive enjoyed plenty of time in ultra realism simulation while living alongside the more arcadey servers.

 

And now I particularly appreciate that if I wanted to hop online without much spare time I could just jump into an air quake server and try to practice some notching or other generic bvr stuff.

 

DCS is a highly complex simulation and it’s worthwhile to be able to jump into one aspect of it and practice (imperfectly).

 

So just leave the air quake guys be and go join a team for realism simulation 

[Mars Exulte]

1 hour ago, SparxOne said:

But if there is one thing that i could link to DCS as a feature that could potentially make it even better, it would certainly be the risk of death, just like in EFT.

 

  As a veteran of many online games, ranging from permadeath/loss games to utterly ''costless'', I can say it makes little to no practical difference. A large portion of people almost always play like chickenshits. The issue is not ''a price'', it's that there's no way to ''code'' for what the real issue is : pride. People play the same, even if K/D is hidden, loss costs nothing, etc, because it wounds their pride to be a ''loser''. X10 if they feel it was somehow done in a way they didn't ''approve of''. All these stupid death/respawn timers accomplish is making the game a nuisance.

 

They have some place im persistent campaigns, affecting the flow of enemy forces to the front, etc etc. But outside these sort of ''highly circumstantial'' influences, as far as general ''player behavior'' goes, it makes little difference.

 

 

59 minutes ago, Relic said:

I’m not active in dcs multiplayer but I’ll say that criticizing “air quakers” for playing a perceived wrong way on a server designed for air quake doesn’t seem right to me.

 

  They're perfectly right to play however they want. The issue is usually that people go online, join an airquake server, then complain on the forums that they joined an airquake server. See 90% of helo pilots complaining about getting scalped by fighters when they yolo off by themselves on a server almost entirely populated by killwhores.

Edited April 12, 2021 by Mars Exulte

[Harlikwin]

On 4/7/2021 at 10:40 AM, Silver_Dragon said:

 

ED plan build Vehicle Damage modeling after modern aircraf DM. If them work as the actual aircraft DM. They can be damage systems and equipment.

 

I mean, I hate to be a pessimist here, but honestly, given how long its taking to even get the warbirds up on that DM, and how much tweaking each one will need, I'm not optimistic that we will ever see ground units in the next decade unless they really do something generic, like here is a "tank" (with some changes to armor), here is a "truck" etc.

 

Not to mention "semi realistic" gunnery, spotting and morale from those guys, no matter how much I appreciate the Slavbo school of gunnery from Volgywood studios that ED has decided to embrace...

 

With apologies to all peoples of all ethnicities everywhere, especially slavs.....

Situation, enemy armor convoy under attack from harrier...

<BMP2 radio operator> Enemy Aircraft reported Komandyr....

<BMP2 Komandyr> looks for 0.5 sec, Blyat, there he is speck on horizon 20km away. Gunner engage...

<BMP2 gunner Slavbo> Blyat, Yawohl Komandyr, hold my vodka and watch this...

BRRRT....

<BMP2 gunner Slavbo> Kill Konfirmed Komandyr... 

<cue Harbase Gopnik music>

 

I mean why bother having actual radar directed AAA in the game when a BMP or frikkin Bofors is just as good, with magic AI gunnery. I'm sure the shilka wasn't developed because the Zu-23 was "just fine".

 

Edited April 12, 2021 by Harlikwin

[SparxOne]

2 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

 

  As a veteran of many online games, ranging from permadeath/loss games to utterly ''costless'', I can say it makes little to no practical difference. A large portion of people almost always play like chickenshits. The issue is not ''a price'', it's that there's no way to ''code'' for what the real issue is : pride. People play the same, even if K/D is hidden, loss costs nothing, etc, because it wounds their pride to be a ''loser''. X10 if they feel it was somehow done in a way they didn't ''approve of''. All these stupid death/respawn timers accomplish is making the game a nuisance.

 

They have some place im persistent campaigns, affecting the flow of enemy forces to the front, etc etc. But outside these sort of ''highly circumstantial'' influences, as far as general ''player behavior'' goes, it makes little difference.

 

 

 

  They're perfectly right to play however they want. The issue is usually that people go online, join an airquake server, then complain on the forums that they joined an airquake server. See 90% of helo pilots complaining about getting scalped by fighters when they yolo off by themselves on a server almost entirely populated by killwhores.

 

I don't entirely agree with you here, this kind of talk will in any case boil down to personnal experience and personnal opinion.

 

Either way, as much as "pride" is probably a big part of the way people play games, i still personnaly believe that a system forcing a punishment on the player for dying does indeed force the player into playing differently if he's into playing the game "properly" and wanting to actually succeed and improve. The impact a player has in any game really depends on the involvement he's putting into that said game, someone playing a game like EFT with such a punishable system will have to adapt or he simply won't improve.

Plus, you seem to focus on the as quoted "death/respawn" timer accomplishing nothing but making the game a nuisance, if you're referencing to the 20 mins timer that was previously stated on EFT, well unless you've played the game and know exactly what it is about and how it works, trust me, it isn't a nuisance since that timer only applies to a unimportant part of the game, your main progression is not impacted at all by that timer. Your main progression has no timer what so ever if you die/respawn.

 

My point to be clear, if DCS had a somewhat punishable system for death, don't you think people would fly differently on most servers ? Don't you honestly think people would think twice before flying "braindead" into a sam infested area ? Or into a highly disadvantaged air to air battle ? 

 

29 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I mean, I hate to be a pessimist here, but honestly, given how long its taking to even get the warbirds up on that DM, and how much tweaking each one will need, I'm not optimistic that we will ever see ground units in the next decade unless they really do something generic, like here is a "tank" (with some changes to armor), here is a "truck" etc.

 

 

Funny because i've also been kinda pessimistic in another thread about the exact same subject, i was more leaning towards an end of 2022 rather  Yet i was told otherwise by Fri13 telling me that the ground vehicles DM would be worked on after the WWII stuff... But i still don't believe that and am on the same info as you, ground DM is something that will be worked on AFTER it is implemented to modern aircrafts  So quite a way to go before we get to see anything  

[Harlikwin]

8 minutes ago, SparxOne said:

Funny because i've also been kinda pessimistic in another thread about the exact same subject, i was more leaning towards an end of 2022 rather  Yet i was told otherwise by Fri13 telling me that the ground vehicles DM would be worked on after the WWII stuff... But i still don't believe that and am on the same info as you, ground DM is something that will be worked on AFTER it is implemented to modern aircrafts  So quite a way to go before we get to see anything  

 

I mean lets be realistic, if some tank commander sees/hears/is told of enemy CAS in an area, his #1 priority is gonna be to hide, not try to randomly kill them from X km when they don't see him. Guess what blocks FLIR/visual/NVGs? This magical fucking object called a TREE... Yes, fine for example the longbow Radar kinda does, but still, for the most part SOP for tanks is to be not noticed and let ADA deal with it. Not this BS BBBBRRRRTTTT behavior we see in DCS, look at meee ADRIANNNAEEEE <daka daka noises>....

 

Edited April 12, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Schmidtfire]

On 3/27/2021 at 4:54 PM, BioZ said:

Greetings everyone, so I have a question...

 

In DCS world what real purpose will the hind serve? The reason I ask this question is due to the fact that in DCS world combat is mainly oriented around the ground and air vehicles. What was the last time you really tried to support the infantry in DCS? Yes, we may have 4 9M120 against the ground targets, but that's about it. 

In contrast, the upcoming Apache will have much more "space" in DCS with up to 16 hellfires on board and various sensors such as AG radar, Datalink, and multiple self-defense capabilities.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Mi-24D is a great helicopter, I will certainly pre-order it and probably enjoy learning and flying it.

 

I see the Mi-24P as a mixed bag of Mi-8 and Ka-50. You get a high speed helicopter, troop transport, rockets, cannon and ATGM's. The AI "Petrovic" and multicrew will hopefully offer a bit of flavour. It will serve the purpose of any other helicopter currently in DCS. Mi-24P will be a great for counter insurgency type missions, like striking training camps and convoys with little to no AAA defence. But trying to clear airfields filled to the brim with Shilkas and Tunguskas is recipe for disaster. It is not the type of module that will dominate the multiplayer arena in terms of capability, wiping out bases left and right. Ka-50 has better sensors and longer range ATGM's. With flexible 30mm cannon.     

Edited April 12, 2021 by Schmidtfire

[Fri13]

5 hours ago, SparxOne said:

Not that it's very important i'll admit, but i had to correct you here haha  

 

Good to know. As didn't know so exact things for its mechanics than there is a penalty and timer etc. 

But the point is that penalty for failing the mission is there. 

 

5 hours ago, SparxOne said:

But if there is one thing that i could link to DCS as a feature that could potentially make it even better, it would certainly be the risk of death, just like in EFT. That's to me probably the feature that makes the game stand out the most, the stress and adrenaline you get when entering a gunfight knowing very well that death would mean loosing that hard earned gear you have on yourself and therefore starting either from scratch or picking a spare one you have in your stash (But of coarse not infinite). It makes the fights much more challenging and decision making very important ! Do i wanna risk my gear and fight ? Or should i flee and stay safe to fight another day ?

 

If we would have a pilot rank system, that you need to work for. You gain benefits from gaining flight hours, completing missions (like dropping bomb accurately where JTAC requests, or flying flight plan properly etc) and building career, then you build a virtual pilot that you don't want to waste for a stupid death.

Like if it would take a 25 hours to get to a good average standing, you totally are not going to kill that virtual pilot at all same manner as you would if you have 15 minutes. And if with 15 minutes you are more about a target practice for anyone else with 5-10 hours, it will require you to put effort to fly missions properly and fear every single engagement that you might die for it. 

 

5 hours ago, SparxOne said:

The whole aspect of being punished for dying can of coarse be very frustrating in certain situations, yet it pushes you to have a certain play style and mindset if you're willing to keep playing the game, therefore anyone coming to troll or play carelessly will simply loose interest very fast because of how fast they'll hit the bottom of the pit and be rendered kinda useless facing someone who did take it serious enough.

 

That is why there should be a good balance, and whole system of course be a optional. So those who are willing to go experience what time and effort gets you and how it feels to be worried to be virtually shot down.... 

 

The system could even require a reputation system as well where wrong doings are reported and registered and it can have on penalties. Meaning that friendly fires are very bad thing to happen, jumping in landing queue without proper radio communication and permission etc would just push you further away.

It could help various virtual squadrons to be participating more to public servers when you can show off the experience and talent and so on.

 

For a fighter pilot it can be easier to avoid getting shot, but helicopter pilot it can be far more dangerous at this moment before we get better AI to control ground units to engage helicopters. As it is far more difficult to build a career as helicopter pilot than it is as fighter pilot. 

[Fri13]

10 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I mean lets be realistic, if some tank commander sees/hears/is told of enemy CAS in an area, his #1 priority is gonna be to hide, not try to randomly kill them from X km when they don't see him. Guess what blocks FLIR/visual/NVGs? This magical fucking object called a TREE... Yes, fine for example the longbow Radar kinda does, but still, for the most part SOP for tanks is to be not noticed and let ADA deal with it. Not this BS BBBBRRRRTTTT behavior we see in DCS, look at meee ADRIANNNAEEEE <daka daka noises>....

 

Exactly. 

 

The vehicle crew roof guns are for self-defense purposes. So if the helicopter will fly 300-500 meters of them other direction and troops are already exposed (spotted etc) then you can try to take them down. But someone needs to pop-up and reveal themselves, vulnerable for a any average soldier in 300-400 meters and sniper up to 600-800 meters when stationary, and you want to be stationary to fire that (H)MG. 

If the helicopter is coming toward your position in purpose of attack (not at you, but someone in your platoon 100-150 meters away) then you can try to suppress the helicopter by firing at it to disturb its attack and break away.

 

We need AI units to have even a basic logic that when to open fire, and when not to. As at best firing at someone you just reveal your position. 

And in DCS this can be easily exploited in KA-50 that you fly at proper distance from the expected enemy positions and get them to engage you. Jinking slightly as evasive flight and they don't hit you. You will spot them and then come around to engage them.

 

The longbow radar is not suppose to be so effective. Sure if you have a non-camouflaged vehicles sitting in center of a harvested field, then you get to spot them easily from 3-5 km. But you do that already visually as well. Camouflage the vehicle and radar becomes basically obsolete tool among FLIR, and visual spotting is very challenging.

 

If we would have those vehicles have a logic to withdraw to cover and conceal themselves, the CAS would turn to be totally different experience.

  

[Fri13]

 

Growling Sidewinder interview with Nick Grey about Dynamic Campaign and AI logic.

https://youtu.be/OhpwuAGqstc?t=480

 

CasmoTV interview with Wags about Dynamic Campaign, UI, AI etc about highest priority.

https://youtu.be/wiZ6pq1taCA?t=283

https://youtu.be/wiZ6pq1taCA?t=1832

 

Grim Reapers interview with Simon about Damage Modeling and Combined Arms.

https://youtu.be/zRKL0yZHvwg?t=2866

https://youtu.be/zRKL0yZHvwg?t=3949

https://youtu.be/zRKL0yZHvwg?t=4140

https://youtu.be/zRKL0yZHvwg?t=4364

 

Here we can see a third party mention of the Damage Modeling WW2 -> Modern. But in their quoted original post from ED, it is not the case of the order: https://stormbirds.blog/2020/10/09/ai-and-damage-models-subject-of-dcs-update/ 

 

"All of their released fighters have apparently been already updated and their AI piloted bombers are due to get this upgrade next. Following that, more modern jets will begin to see this technology emerge which should lead to more nuanced damage profiles there too." -> https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/254464-official-news-2020/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-4447624

 

In a 20th January 2020 Newsletter is mentioned this: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/254464-official-news-2020/?tab=comments#comment-4124781

 

 

"Once we and our clients are happy with the warbirds damage model system, we will implement this new damage modelling to the more modern aircraft, ground units, and naval units."

 

Again nothing about the other orders than WW2 first, and after that the rest in general. On later newsletters (7th February 2020) there are other mentions:

 

"Most of the Eagle Dynamics team will be focused on DCS World core to improve performance, lighting, and weather. We will also launch our new damage modelling engine which initially will be for the WWII aircraft. The team is also working hard to improve airfield air traffic control, more life-like AI, new AI units, and a dynamic campaign system."

 

In the 2019 Mudspike interview with Matt Wagner: https://www.mudspike.com/mudspike-ama-with-eagle-dynamics-senior-producer-matt-wagner/

 

Are there any plans to expand Combined Arms? This hidden gem of a module can really alter the multiplayer landscape with a cunning user at the helm but hasn’t gained a large following.

Certainly, but before we can do so, there are other items that first need to be addressed:

• Detailed damage model system for ground units
• Improved ground unit AI decision making
• New and improved ground unit effects
• A much more detailed ground environment

 

So we are not going to see any new campaign mode or anything about Combined Arms before damage models comes to ground units.

And it clearly said that order was WW2 -> Ground -> Modern fighters years back (not just week ago), but everything is subject to change. Just need to find the interview.

In the other interviews it has been discussed how they are trying to get the first version of Dynamic Campaign for testing (again, requirement to have those other systems first in place) in this year, but again everything is subject to change. 

Overall is that changes will be major in the near future, as these things has been in ground work development like since 2014-2016 and couple years for more advanced major work. 

[BIGNEWY]

42 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

So we are not going to see any new campaign mode or anything about Combined Arms before damage models comes to ground units.

 

Dynamic campaign and combined arms are separate tasks from damage model. Work continues on the dynamic campaign currently and it is not tied to the damage model.

 

[Fri13]

13 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

Dynamic campaign and combined arms are separate tasks from damage model. Work continues on the dynamic campaign currently and it is not tied to the damage model.

 

 

So Dynamic Campaign will not be including the improved AI and ground units behavior but just a strategic elements?

2 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

 

 

Source: Wags on CasmoTV

 

I have remembered it wrong as in 2017 Wags said:

"....once we get that done that will translate well to you know the modern aircraft and even the ground vehicles at some point...."

 

https://youtu.be/JhUSSM4a7BU?t=1531

 

[Fri13]

13 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

Mi-24P will be a great for counter insurgency type missions, like striking training camps and convoys with little to no AAA defence. But trying to clear airfields filled to the brim with Shilkas and Tunguskas is recipe for disaster.

 

Our current problem in the DCS mission designs is that the Anti-Air units are in the airbase, not surrounding areas like building a 50-300 km defense airspace around the base that you have difficulties to penetrate with anything. Right now it is in common servers just flying to airbase and there is like a short range SAM system defending the runways, why people get shot down on short moment after they take-off as enemy can just circle around the airbase waiting players to get up. 

 

13 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

It is not the type of module that will dominate the multiplayer arena in terms of capability, wiping out bases left and right. Ka-50 has better sensors and longer range ATGM's. With flexible 30mm cannon.     

 

If all goes better direction, none of the aircraft will be able to do that. You need an army to do so. And that is what Mi-24P will be doing, supporting that army to move on the ground in front line. Attacking on the targets that are harder for the ground units. While being protected by the MiG-29's and SAM systems. 

 

Almost any aircraft can dominate a proper small combat group, like have a recon team in AFV and even a two SA342 will take such out unless that is something like a LAV-25 and few Stingers with them. But put any aircraft against properly set army division and they get down sooner than get to release anything. 

The Mi-24P will do fine when using common DCS style that place a 4 MBT's on the open field and shoot them from the distance.

 

Place anything on the ground that can engage Mi-24 outside its weapons envelopes and it will be engaged as soon it just comes visible. 

So not even surprise engagements can be used at the moment when everyone knows where it is at that moment. 

[BIGNEWY]

29 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

So Dynamic Campaign will not be including the improved AI and ground units behavior but just a strategic elements?

 

AI work is in progress, campaign is in progress. 

 

I am not sure what your point is here. The work is ready when it is ready, and we will pass more information closer to release. 

thanks

[Fri13]

Just now, BIGNEWY said:

 

AI work is in progress, campaign is in progress. 

 

I am not sure what your point is here. The work is ready when it is ready, and we will pass more information closer to release. 

thanks

 

Not asking at all about the schedule, just that are the AI units logic touched in the dynamic campaign part of the development, if either one are separate process?