Steel Beasts and Esim working with DCS

[EasyE]

So in a short period of time Digital Combat Simulator will be pushing out their new EDGE graphics engine. By all accounts in will greatly improve a number of performance areas, including the terrain. The current terrain is awful for armored warfare. Big flat spaces with no relief and massive sharp edges.

DCS combined arms isn't in the same league as Steel Beasts, but there are rumors in the community that they want to push more into the AFV area when the new terrain is finished. Looking at the new screen shots it looks like it may be something worth playing.

What crossed my mind is that Esim should try and partner up with DCS to help create and launch a lower fidelity but still fun accurate armored module for DCS. I mean that way Esim could grab more market share exposure etc etc. Why compete when you can use your expertise to grab market share that you may lose.

I mean the only response I could give if I say " DCS M1A2SEP (Leo-2 etc) by Esim would be " SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!"

I would still buy both Steel Beasts and a DCS armored module with development work done by Esim.

Just me thinking out loud. I just pulled a similar move in my industry and it worked out well for both of us.

[Marko]

So in a short period of time Digital Combat Simulator will be pushing out their new EDGE graphics engine. By all accounts in will greatly improve a number of performance areas, including the terrain. The current terrain is awful for armored warfare. Big flat spaces with no relief and massive sharp edges.

DCS combined arms isn't in the same league as Steel Beasts, but there are rumors in the community that they want to push more into the AFV area when the new terrain is finished. Looking at the new screen shots it looks like it may be something worth playing.

What crossed my mind is that Esim should try and partner up with DCS to help create and launch a lower fidelity but still fun accurate armored module for DCS. I mean that way Esim could grab more market share exposure etc etc. Why compete when you can use your expertise to grab market share that you may lose.

I mean the only response I could give if I say " DCS M1A2SEP (Leo-2 etc) by Esim would be " SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!"

I would still buy both Steel Beasts and a DCS armored module with development work done by Esim.

Just me thinking out loud. I just pulled a similar move in my industry and it worked out well for both of us.

The idea was rejected by ED/DCS. management

A serious miscalculation by them in my view.

I would not be surprised if Bohemia/Arma 3 start moving in to more hard-core Aircraft/vehicle simulations. they have the customer base and finance to do it

They have just released a Helicopter DLC pack. not sure if its a hard-core sim or not though.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Marko

[Kingtiger]

They have just realised a Helicopter DLC pack. not sure if is a hard-core sim or not though.

Nope, just "more harder" then before. And that does not say much really.

[MDF]

What crossed my mind is that Esim should try and partner up with DCS to help create and launch a lower fidelity but still fun accurate armored module for DCS.

Why settle for lower fidelity armor simulation? DCS' aircraft simulations are pretty frikkin' hardcore, no?

Alas, as others noted, the idea was rejected by EDS, reportedly.

[Marko]

Why settle for lower fidelity armor simulation? DCS' aircraft simulations are pretty frikkin' hardcore, no?

Alas, as others noted, the idea was rejected by EDS, reportedly.

Agreed.

DCS Combined arms is not a high fidelity armoured simulation.

Its a game more along the lines of WOT then SB, There were rumours they are working on some high fidelity armour Modules. but to make it a Sim up to SB standards they would have to scrap CA and start again .IMO

But CA has it uses I have played some MP against human pilots in A10 and SU-25 ground attack aircraft

I Usually manned AAA vehicles. and tried in vein to repel there attacks. As i suspected there stand off capability's were just to much of a advantage. unless you were up against a Gung ho pilot who wanted to use his cannon

[Ssnake]

I wouldn't go so far to say that ED top management officially rejected the idea, but at least my pitch never went anywhere. This is a bit of a shame to the extent that we could have opened a common military market with a spin-off into the regular game world.

But of course they retain more creative freedom that way, and I respect that. Who knows. Under the right conditions they might still reconsider their options.

[Marko]

I wouldn't go so far to say that ED top management officially rejected the idea, but at least my pitch never went anywhere. This is a bit of a shame to the extent that we could have opened a common military market with a spin-off into the regular game world.

But of course they retain more creative freedom that way, and I respect that. Who knows. Under the right conditions they might still reconsider their options.

Apologies,

I could not find your original reply on the subject I thought you said Wags was not interested.

Here's hoping DCS realise it has potential for both company's.

I do frequent the DCS forums.

SB gets mentioned quite often In the combined arms Section,

Much to the annoyance of the moderators LoL.

I get the impression there of are a lot CA players who are also SB players.

And the general consensus seems to be SB is far superior.

[EasyE]

Apologies,

I could not find your original reply on the subject I thought you said Wags was not interested.

Here's hoping DCS realise it has potential for both company's.

I do frequent the DCS forums.

SB gets mentioned quite often In the combined arms Section,

Much to the annoyance of the moderators LoL.

I get the impression there of are a lot CA players who are also SB players.

And the general consensus seems to be SB is far superior.

That would by my opinion.

Doesn't make much sense to me, I mean third party developers are huge with DCS now..

[Marko]

That would by my opinion.

Doesn't make much sense to me, I mean third party developers are huge with DCS now..

Yes third party developer's seem to have set a new standard, The mig21 is very impressive

Kudos to the small team of guys responsible for it.

But getting back to SB its not my area but I could see some possible technical issues the infantry is much better in SB Then CA, And then there is the sheer amount of playable Vehicles in SB

It mite overwhelm even the new edge improvements to DCS world.

Then there's the cost, A lot of people who bought CA will probably not want to pay for SB And vice versa how many SB player would want to fork out for a DCS based version of SB

Personally and this is pure speculation I think DCS world have to Dump CA completely

And let esim build it from the ground up using its expertise in armour.

And lastly. esim would have to devote a lot of time researching/modelling AAA vehicles that would also Need a effective radar system

The soviets had a multitude of systems with varying Degrees of sophistication.

Again its pure speculation on my behalf.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Marko

[Ssnake]

Then there's the cost, A lot of people who bought CA will probably not want to pay for SB And vice versa how many SB player would want to fork out for a DCS based version of SB

Not the point, actually. What you would do is to create an option for both simulations to create entities in the other system, and do that via some subscription game server. So what you'd pay for is the common gateway server, you'd pay for playing together. Nobody would have to buy a game in which he's not interested. But since the strengths of each game are largely complementary you'd enhance the play experience for both groups and thus the value of each game.

Microprose's "Electronic Battlefield" concept is feasible with some degree of coordination, but no developer can do it alone. What appears to be feasible however is to generate correlated terrain databases for both systems, and to create a gateway that casts entities of both worlds into the other.

What DCS is missing IMO is a "living world". Where are the civilians, where are military ground units that aren't part of your attack mission that might still be targets (and threats) of opportunity. From what I'm seeing in the DCS videos on YouTube, the world is void except for those units that are directly involved as mission-specific combatants. So you can more or less safely assume that the hotspots in your thermals are the targets you've been sent to destroy. Target discrimination, making choices about possible collateral damages, this is all NOT part of the DCS experience, and I think we could deliver just that.

In the other direction, DCS would create a more diverse air threat in SB Pro.

Well, this is all just fantasizing. It's a shame that the idea never gained traction. Maybe my pitch was lacking.

[Tacbat]

The DCS Team is probably too busy still working on the Nevada map to dedicate any time to looking at integrating their product with someone else's.

[Marko]

Some guy called Marko321

Started a thread on the DCS CA forum about this topic.

Mite make for a interesting discussion.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=133293

[SiThSpAwN]

Some guy called Marko321

You mean you?

[AlphaOneSix]

You mean you?

DCS Beta Team members are not allowed on these forums.

[SiThSpAwN]

DCS Beta Team members are not allowed on these forums.

Oh I missed that warning when I signed up

[AlphaOneSix]

Oh I missed that warning when I signed up

I think the guys here will let it slide, they are a pretty nice bunch.

[Grenny]

I think the guys here will let it slide, they are a pretty nice bunch.

They are. After all they let you stay

[Marko]

Man your (SAM) the DCS boys are here. LoL

[DarkLabor]

Just read the DCS topic.

The way to go is to develop a HLA bridge.

Well... It presupposes that the PE version of Steel Beasts is HLA enabled (but honnestly, I doubt because, it's a feature that you would have on a professionnal software...).

Who knows... we found out that the PE version can play Pro scenarios, thanks to Gibsonm.

[Hedgehog]

Just read the DCS topic.

The way to go is to develop a HLA bridge.

Well... It presupposes that the PE version of Steel Beasts is HLA enabled (but honnestly, I doubt because, it's a feature that you would have on a professionnal software...).

Who knows... we found out that the PE version can play Pro scenarios, thanks to Gibsonm.

However, we handily know the guy who makes the eSim strategic decisions.

Ssnake, was the randomized Civvie functionality on the radar when you pitched?

And with regard to SAM system control.

Well i've said it before.

SAMsim

[Tacom]

As much as I would like to see a link between both sims, I find that their relative sizes make them difficult to blend. When I used to fly DCS it was quite normal to destroy whole companies with a single aircraft.

To make it fun for us tankers, and not just being in the receiving end of ordenance we would need to command companies to have vehiles to spare, so a group like DOW would need to deploy a regiment to give everybody a position.

Also, dont expect a lot of tank to tank action. I usually attacked the red advancing columns 20 or more km in front of the FLOT.

So, unless somebody started designing radically different missions, what you can expect as a tanker is a long drive to the front while most of your vehicles explode around you.

And perhaps this missions would not be to the pilots taste.

[Marko]

As much as I would like to see a link between both sims, I find that their relative sizes make them difficult to blend. When I used to fly DCS it was quite normal to destroy whole companies with a single aircraft.

To make it fun for us tankers, and not just being in the receiving end of ordenance we would need to command companies to have vehiles to spare, so a group like DOW would need to deploy a regiment to give everybody a position.

Also, dont expect a lot of tank to tank action. I usually attacked the red advancing columns 20 or more km in front of the FLOT.

So, unless somebody started designing radically different missions, what you can expect as a tanker is a long drive to the front while most of your vehicles explode around you.

And perhaps this missions would not be to the pilots taste.

I would agree with your statements.

Even playing combined arms, your basically cannon fodder unless you have Air Cover or a Defensive Sam shield preferable both.

My point is we play SB/DCS because we want a realistic simulation .

And it doesn't get more real then air strikes.

[Ssnake]

Just read the DCS topic.

The way to go is to develop a HLA bridge.

I would not necessarily commit to one specific network protocol at this point. Let's just say that there would either be "a" gateway to interface both simulations, or "some" common network protocol. Both simulations would inject "their" entities into the other simulation where they may interact with each other.

This would keep the initial development effort relatively low, but then there's still the devil in all the detail. You want it to perform and to scale well, you need to have at least some overlap in the object library, etc.

Finally it's the question whether you can find common ground as far as the commercial side is concerned. It needs to be a balanced solution for both companies, and the customers of course.

[Ssnake]

Tacom has a valid point however. Air strikes are an operational or even strategic asset, tanks are largely a tactical element (a whole tank brigade... well, that's different of course - but not necessarily in the scope of a typical SB scenario).

That's where the devil sits. But it sits there just as well with a complete in-house solution. It doesn't really matter if the tank element is a module of your own simulation, or if it's an external simulation entity. You still need to find a range of missions and tasks that are appealing for either player. Sufficiently dense air defense elements might make it extremely hazardous for jet bomber players (to the point where it's no longer a lot of fun) but I'd expect that the ED guys must have a plan for that. Apparently they've been planning this expansion for quite some time.

[Gibsonm]

I would not necessarily commit to one specific network protocol at this point. Let's just say that there would either be "a" gateway to interface both simulations, or "some" common network protocol. Both simulations would inject "their" entities into the other simulation where they may interact with each other.

This would keep the initial development effort relatively low, but then there's still the devil in all the detail. You want it to perform and to scale well, you need to have at least some overlap in the object library, etc.

Finally it's the question whether you can find common ground as far as the commercial side is concerned. It needs to be a balanced solution for both companies, and the customers of course.

Yes this has been problematic for us (unsure if its purely technical or lack of will on a side) with VBS and another product near and dear to our hearts via the LVC game route.

Once you get the object library sorted, you then move onto issues about collated terrain, etc.

And that's with two ground force products.