Wishlist..

[StevanJ]

Can we please have a 'Wishlist' Thread for Combined arms..

My current Wishlist items.

1) Start In Tank- Not F10 Menu (If theres a way to do this, PLEASE let me know)

2) Better Infantry- (This is for Heli's too)

3) ALL infantry IN the Infantry menu (Man-pads etc)

[Northstar98]

+1

[Kang]

4) A system that allows not only to assign targets to commanded artillery units, but reliably have them cease fire again.

[_SwiVet_]

+1

this could be a great module, hope it gets more love in the future

[Volator]

5. MBT M60 drivable

6. Option to take away the easy targeting option for CA units in MP

7. better control options for UAV ops (setting up a loiter track; maybe even sensor integration into CA)

8. goes with 4.: better control/information over artillery units (e.g information when they are unable to fire, when they have finished fire mission etc.) 

9. goes with 2. infantry taking cover and being able to fire from cover

10. being able to set repetitive patrol patterns for ground units

11. improved damage model for ground units

...

Edited May 5, 2021 by Pilot Ike

[CAPT_Kirkpatrick]

On 4/24/2021 at 10:29 AM, Pilot Ike said:

6. Option to take away the easy targeting option for CA units in MP

7. better control options for UAV ops (setting up a loiter track; maybe even sensor integration into CA)

Can someone explain #6 to me? not entirely sure what is meant

#7, seconded, having an proper loiter would be lovely, having a TPOD view so you can actually search and manually laze for other pilots/your own runs would be brilliant

[Volator]

3 hours ago, CAPT_Kirkpatrick said:

Can someone explain #6 to me? not entirely sure what is meant

 

I don't know the exact wording here, but I mean the locking of air and ground targets and then getting an aiming cue for the perfect firing solution. It's highly unrealistic for most units. 

[CAPT_Kirkpatrick]

32 minutes ago, Pilot Ike said:

 

I don't know the exact wording here, but I mean the locking of air and ground targets and then getting an aiming cue for the perfect firing solution. It's highly unrealistic for most units. 

 

Fair enough that, I only thought you actually got a piper for the radar enabled systems, the rest you just got a visual lock square but no further info. (anti air this is, not sure I've ever locked from ground to ground)

[Northstar98]

39 minutes ago, Pilot Ike said:

I don't know the exact wording here, but I mean the locking of air and ground targets and then getting an aiming cue for the perfect firing solution. It's highly unrealistic for most units. 

 

Yes, though we'd probably need more accurate FCS for units in DCS (especially things like RADAR gun-laying for the Shilka and Gepard for instance).

 

5 minutes ago, CAPT_Kirkpatrick said:

Fair enough that, I only thought you actually got a piper for the radar enabled systems, the rest you just got a visual lock square but no further info. (anti air this is, not sure I've ever locked from ground to ground)

 

You get the same thing for ground-to-ground, though for some tanks DCS does have a fire-control system implemented (though it might have some issues) which I would've thought should negate the need for it.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Northstar98

[CAPT_Kirkpatrick]

33 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

You get the same thing for ground-to-ground, though for some tanks DCS does have a fire-control system implemented (though it might have some issues) which I would've thought should negate the need for it.

 

Yeah, I've noticed it in the MBT's to an extent, but I always passed that off as being a IRL function of the computer systems

[Volator]

26 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Yes, though we'd probably need more accurate FCS for units in DCS (especially things like RADAR gun-laying for the Shilka and Gepard for instance).

Absolutely, units with an FCR can and should have the aiming circle. But for say an M1 it's unrealistic to "lock" a T-72 or a Mi-24. There you have laser range finder and automatic lead computation to get a good firing solution on a moving target, but it's more difficult of course. For MP servers, hosts should have the option to decide whether to use "easy" aiming or realistic aiming. 

[Fri13]

We might get a better laser behavior when new FLIR system appears, but otherwise we need to wait for the RTS game elements and new AI to be dropped in DCS.

 

As well many ground units behavior should be changed by simply removing the whole "Easy Targeting" as default and making it a "Game mode" feature (but anyone can enable it if really wanted, but it would be against the FCS and rest systems).

 

But this as well means we should get dozens of new units as types and classes. Vehicles sub-systems to support the various means of targeting etc.

[Northstar98]

11 minutes ago, CAPT_Kirkpatrick said:

Yeah, I've noticed it in the MBT's to an extent, but I always passed that off as being a IRL function of the computer systems

 

Yes, it is an IRL function, I'm just not sure whether or not the DCS one suffers from issues (though I might be thinking of problems with stabilisers) - I need to do some more testing.

 

10 minutes ago, Pilot Ike said:

Absolutely, units with an FCR can and should have the aiming circle.

 

Shouldn't they have automatic gun laying? I'm unfamiliar with the systems in question, but a RADAR tracking a target should be able to produce the required data to automatically lay the gun, and the operator just pulls the trigger.

 

I guess what I'm after probably fits under the umbrella of increasing the fidelity and accuracy of units (right now it leaves a lot to be desired, even without going for vehicle modules on par with our full-fidelity aircraft modules).

 

Quote

But for say an M1 it's unrealistic to "lock" a T-72 or a Mi-24. There you have laser range finder and automatic lead computation to get a good firing solution on a moving target, but it's more difficult of course. For MP servers, hosts should have the option to decide whether to use "easy" aiming or realistic aiming. 

 

Agreed.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Northstar98

[Volator]

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Shouldn't they have automatic gun laying? I'm unfamiliar with the systems in question, but a RADAR tracking a target should be able to produce the required data to automatically lay the gun, and the operator just pulls the trigger.

 

Yes, they should, but in DCS they don't, AFAIK. So...

 

12. Automatic gun laying for radar-guided AAA.

[TobiasA]

If tanks would have a real stabilizer and lead computing like the Leopard 2 and Abrams have, I'd buy the module. I currently went against it because commanding units are not my thing, but driving a tank in a simulator certainly would be. Right now it is a bit arcade. 

I would actually pay 20 bucks extra for having a real tank simulator.

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, TobiasA said:

If tanks would have a real stabilizer and lead computing like the Leopard 2 and Abrams have, I'd buy the module. I currently went against it because commanding units are not my thing, but driving a tank in a simulator certainly would be. Right now it is a bit arcade. 

I would actually pay 20 bucks extra for having a real tank simulator.

 

In the some time in future we should be getting those. As long time ago ED was searching for a M1 Abrams SME for upcoming module of it. They had fancy videos about new animations and all for it. But then they have changed their goals as they found that they need to improve everything else first. A new terrain engine to support high resolution terrain, new FLIR, new AI, new ground units damage modeling and all related to that. 

 

At this moment one needs to look elsewhere for real tank simulator (that is actually used to train the MBT crews in militaries) or if they can't afford for it (requires special USB key to use it) then there are some games that has second best modelings for that. 

 

But Combined Arms is not so far to be acceptable, it is now first lacking a lot about controls. And then maybe second thing is the terrain as there is not much cover that could be utilized for movement and combat.

Like give the VR support for Combined Arms and it would be already nicer. Even today I will turn more likely to 90's games than DCS World controls as there are more about the cooperation between helicopters or artillery and terrains has the simple, but working elements where you don't just have one sneaky AI firing at you because it just saw a 1/10th of your hull. 

 

There is possibility that at least one third party studio would start developing a ground units to DCS World and then develop as well more deep vehicle simulators for DCS world depending what a ED can provide for them. 

 

 

  

[TobiasA]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Fri13:

 

In the some time in future we should be getting those. As long time ago ED was searching for a M1 Abrams SME for upcoming module of it. They had fancy videos about new animations and all for it. But then they have changed their goals as they found that they need to improve everything else first. A new terrain engine to support high resolution terrain, new FLIR, new AI, new ground units damage modeling and all related to that. 

 

At this moment one needs to look elsewhere for real tank simulator (that is actually used to train the MBT crews in militaries) or if they can't afford for it (requires special USB key to use it) then there are some games that has second best modelings for that. 

 

But Combined Arms is not so far to be acceptable, it is now first lacking a lot about controls. And then maybe second thing is the terrain as there is not much cover that could be utilized for movement and combat.

Like give the VR support for Combined Arms and it would be already nicer. Even today I will turn more likely to 90's games than DCS World controls as there are more about the cooperation between helicopters or artillery and terrains has the simple, but working elements where you don't just have one sneaky AI firing at you because it just saw a 1/10th of your hull. 

 

There is possibility that at least one third party studio would start developing a ground units to DCS World and then develop as well more deep vehicle simulators for DCS world depending what a ED can provide for them. 

 

 

  

I know the simulator you are talking about, and I hope we see something like this in DCS some day. 

[Fri13]

@NineLine How about the wishlist sub-forum for the Combined Arms?

[Volator]

13. Artillery fire missions should not automatically be deleted if they are assigned/linked to a spotted unit on the F10 map that eventually disappears because it is out of LOS for spotting unit. Arty should keep firing at the last known coordinates, if the unit was static.

 

14. Option to deselect fire mission targets being tagged to units if target marker comes close to them, I'd rather be able to place the target point individually

 

15. Option to create groups from individual units "Command and Conquer-style" to move units together or assign fire missions to arty with one single click.

 

16. Option to save groups, assign names, recall them via menu and option to automatically move focus on F10 map to group 

 

 

[Ignition]

17. Option for different filters for types of unit to be displayed on F10 map. When trying to find something on very cluttered map its impossible.

 

18. Option to force realistic sensors, for example no air to air missiles on F10 magic.

 

19. Shorter name tags, its impossible to read so looooooooooooooooooooooooooooong names with a very cluttered map. It should be a short type of unit tag.

 

 

[Volator]

20. Optional event markers for units, audio and/or text, informing tactical commanders that a unit has spotted enemy or is being engaged, with a button that moves F10 view focus to that unit

Edited May 23, 2021 by Pilot Ike

[Volator]

5 hours ago, Ignition said:

 

19. Shorter name tags, its impossible to read so looooooooooooooooooooooooooooong names with a very cluttered map. It should be a short type of unit tag.

19.1 Maybe with the option to display the in-game callsigns (Enfield 11) instead of the sometimes really weird user callsigns. 

 

21. ATC/GCI style mode for F10 map displaying callsign, altitude and speed next to the icon. 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Pilot Ike

[Callsign112]

+1 and thanks to OP for thread!

[Northstar98]

22.) - rework vehicle physics, such as the completely backwards suspension modelling, neutral pivoting for appropriate tanks, engine power, traction, braking etc.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Northstar98

[Fri13]

23. Realistic communications and everything based to that.

 

24. Requirement that information sharing is delayed, information is mispresented and incorrect. It can not be assumed to be accurate.

Radio is the backbone of the modern military operations. Datalinks are just sub-mode for the radio. 

If a MBT platoon spots something, it should take a long time before any report of it will appear to F10 map.

The information should be limited, update periods become longer, positions etc are inaccurate (especially enemy) and troops movement and locations just a estimations and generic most of the time. 

 

 

25. Proper LOS and FOV simulation for every ground vehicle.

A artillery battery shouldn't see anything that they can't visually see. So they should only react to coordinates and type of target etc. Delays and errors to occur.

A HQ doesn't get to see and know every unit position (friendlies or enemy) but just the generic information of troops in contact, movement plans etc. All be delayed to the F10 map and only generic information there. So no individual MBT platoon units positions or status, just that a MBT platoon is in the generic area "advancing to west" and that enemy "is withdrawing to west and maintains contact to slow advancement". 

 

26. Separate available information for the Combined Arms player and all players.

On F10 map player gets only relevant information for their tasking. A pilot doesn't get to see all own troops positions pin point accuracy and status. Just generic ones as briefed. Fog of War to be real. Those who drive a tank in CA doesn't get to know everything that is happening around them but only direct information they can gather and where is their commander or what are the orders. If there is no datalink or radio updates between proper units, the Fog of War will deny accessibility to any information that can't be gathered as a vehicle crew, so F10 doesn't show where a aircraft flies or where enemy positions are. 

When player is a vehicle commander there is limited situational information but more direct information. When player is a F10 commander there is less direct information (to none) and large scale strategic information becomes only available (MBT company A somewhere in area south of X). A strategic map shouldn't tell any exact information from troops (position, status etc) as it can't be a direct information.