Jump to content
Steelbeasts.com

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
5 hours ago, stormrider_sp said:

Apache confirmed?

I was asked to join the DCS testing team in June of 2007 specifically in order to be an AH-64 SME. At the time, I believe, they were hoping to follow up the Ka-50 with the AH-64. So they have definitely been wanting to do an Apache for a long long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
On 4/27/2020 at 1:01 AM, Ssnake said:

It's not as if Steel Beasts is a brand new game in the simulations market. The number of jet pilots among the Steel Beasts users, while not zero, is not large. What makes you think that if the ground combat in DCS was more like Steel Beasts, these virtual pilots will suddenly all change their minds? A considerable fraction of jet pilots, real world or virtual, consider close air support beneath their dignity, deride the A-10, and give loving names like "mud hen" to the F-15. The theory that "simulation is simulation" is demonstrably false for the majority of flight simulation gamers. It's about flying, first and foremost. And there's nothing wrong with it. I'm just saying that based on my experience, the idea that if only you build a more detailed ground component the jet boys will come is not grounded in observable reality.

I don't think that all simmers like only one genre of combat simulation. They prefer one genre, cause there simply doesn't exist a really realistic all in one combat simulation where you can choose between infantry, tanks, helicopters or jets. That's what I'm dreaming about for many years. A simulation that covers all the aspects of combat in one environment and with realistic detail of all the systems. Something like a combination between SB, DCS, ARMA and Dangerous Waters.

 

Sadly I don't think we will ever see such kind of combat simulation, but imagine how interesting and challenging it would be to play combined mission in such an environment. That's the point we would have a real combat simulation. At the moment in every simulation we have only a sandbox in which one kind of vehicles or troops are simulated perfectly and the rest is only there to make it a bit more interesting and far from the perfection of the main aspect this simulator stands for.

 

I think if something like this would exist, we would see a lot of jet-boys sometimes jumping in a tank, or tank-commanders which like to learn the rules of air combat, too. It's not the lack of interest for other sections, you just have to choose which is your favorite genre before you really get an idea of the other sections, too.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Microprose formulated the dream of a "complete" combat simulation that would involve jets, tanks (and presumably also helicopters, submarines, surface vessels) as early as with Falcon 3.0, even before there were first person shooters (which add yet another complexity dimension).

 

Not only isn't the technology there yet. You'd need a world model that is highly performant and at the same time sufficiently detailed for ground units and fast air movers alike, which right now is simply impossible.

 

You also would need to assemble a team of development teams to reach equal competence in each domain, and the likelihood of that happening is small to zero for obvious reasons. Alternatively, create a framework that works for all simulation genres, use a common network architecture, and invite independent devlopers to create their title within this common framework; but then you need to apply strict QA standards, and boy do game developers love other people who tell them how they have to program their titles.

Microsoft tried to build such a framework with FS X, cancelled it, then sold the scraps to Lockmart, and I don't know, maybe the technology somehow lives on but as far as games are concerned, it was a stillborn.

 

A combat omni-simulation is possible if you abstract all the components enough, but then each component will be inferior to a study sim, so people interested in the subject matter will rather take the study sim. How many flight simmers prefer X-Plane over DCS? Arguably X-Plane offers a much wider range of planes to fly, but at the end of the day the more detailed simulation of a narrower field usually attracts more customers.

Simulation game companies are commercial entities. We choose a topic because we feel most competent & confident in it, and then we do what we can to do what we like while running a profit, eventually. Building a "world combat simulation" is a monumental task which has an overwhelming likelihood to fail, and at that scale it's not just going to be a "failure" but an economic disaster of epic proportions. Finding an investor for that is impossible. Maybe you could find a sponsor who isn't interested in making a profit, but most people who have billions of disposable equity tend to be rather mindful about the way they spend it. Jacques Littlefield is, I think, the relatively unique model case of a really rich person willing to spend his fortune on something relatively nerdy, but even his tank collection would not outlast his mortal existence for long, because it was his passion, not his children's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand, Microsoft did not sell scraps to Lockheed, they came to a licenses agreement (rights), till when I don¬īt know.¬† Microsoft is not one who sells there creations, they don¬īt need to.¬† The incoming MSF 2020 still uses some of the ESP source code found in FSX.¬† Actually I think they use most¬†of it and just added to it.¬† After all, it¬īs there code, so again they never sold it to anyone.

 

Star Citizen, while being a Sci-Fi themed platform which makes it difficult to explore how realistic ballistics/flight models etc. are, is coming up with tech that just might support a balanced multi-crew combined arms experience. So nothing is imposible.   It might not use Newtonian physics yet, but that decision has more to do with gameplay, as docking on a stations docking ring with such physics just might overwhelm even the most hardcore gamers.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ssnake

 

Yes, sadly you are right. As said it's just a dream.

 

But let's do some dreaming ūüėÄ (I know this will never happen)

 

If, for example you (eSim Games), Eagle Dynamics, Bohemia Interactive and Sonalysts come together and choose one new engine for a universal "combat environment" this could be possible. Everyone could still doing what he is best in, but within the same environment.

 

You make the tank modules, ED makes the fighters and the helicopters, Bohemia the troops and Sonalysts the naval part. DCS is something like this, only that it is focused on air combat. Bohemia also has thirparty developers. The only problem I see, in this fictional assumption, is the agreement for the used engine and that no one has the exclusive rights for it. It also has to be a start from scratch for all companies, not using an already existing engine from any of them.

 

The combat environment doesn't have to be the whole world, only some maps which makes it possible to use many of the involved vehicles at the same time. There could also be different maps, where you need more landbased miltary or other which are more focused on naval missions, but still have any kind of other vehicles or troops in use.

 

There have to be a lot of identical things like damage modelling, weapon physics and many more I have no idea of, but I think it could be possible at the end. And maybe it could be also interesting from the financial point for all the envolved companies, and not only for the civil market. It could be a good realistic environment for testing and training with different branch of services together for all miltaries.

 

Maybe I'm wrong but that's what I think and dream about.

Edited by Viper1970
Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue I see that devs complain about is the hit calculations take¬†on your PC with such a enviornment/platforms.¬† Without going to far, a dedicated weather engine takes a massive hit on your PC on FSX/P3D along with it¬īs render of such weather in real-time.¬† Add to that all the hit calculations, damage, terrain, sea state (layers), ballistic¬†calculations and a long etc.¬† Even ¬†dedicated platforms like SB and ArmA get picky when to many users are in a same map/battle, regardles of netcode.¬† So I Imagen putting all that togther has to be a melt fest on your chip/GPU no matter what you have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2020 at 7:17 PM, Captain_Colossus said:

my problem with eech is the generic presentation, that is, there are no known or coherent force templates, organizations doctrines or behavior. all campaigns consist of disjointed small mixed units: one or two tanks with an air defense unit, and an infantry fighting vehicle, which the computer identifies as such and such mechanized brigade gathering

at road junctions and what look like nodes that attract them, then they just hang around for a while.

 

the campaigns are little more than wars of attrition- just throwing these units at one another as casualties mount on both sides. it doesn't matter what the enemy or allied force represent, they all use the same disorganized tactics, a relatively weak nation is as a capable as a relatively capable one, same tactics, equipment and organization;

in order to make any progress in the the campaign, the player should actually hijack every assigned mission and go beyond the stated objectives, otherwise the campaigns grind and grind to a stalemate, since the computer does not use large formations to overrun objectives or anything like that at all, just simply launch tit for tat airstrikes from both sides, then these small mixed platoons begin to gather wherever they can- which usually ends up getting them picked off. it's like world war I from the air. in fact, on every outing the player has the opportunity destroy enemy ground units, warships and aircraft from his aircraft, and it becomes a sort of rambo experience- it's playing doom from the cockpit. literally your helicopter is shooting down other helicopters, jets, sinking ships, bombing installations and wiping out ground vehicles in the same sortie.

 

then you understand how the computer generates opponents- literally, the airfields act as unit generators, ground vehicles will spawn out of them. i recall literally seeing this when i attacked an air field, units would start appearing and reappearing as they were being destroyed, so really the implied objective no matter what the assigned briefings say

is to capture every single airfield, since that deprives the enemy of producing more units. gets very repetitive.

 

from a combat standpoint i  still prefer hasbro's gunship!  - even though the flight model and weapons behavior can be a bit arcade like (you would even start missions already in the air without taking off), the force templates of the russians are more in line with real life, and the enemy occasionally would surprise you and react in ways you aren't expecting, i.e., attempt to escape destruction or bring a reserve unit to bear to bring you down. eech doesn't react or move like that at all, there's not really any attempt by the ai to sort you out like that, units just predictably gather at nodes and shoot at one another and just keep doing that.

EECH Allmods is open to anyone who want's to help a bit. I've made the 3D model of the new KA-50 cockpit which is in version 1.16.1 and above. Sadly I'm no coder and always need the help to get instruments, MFD's etc. working, so those works were done by other guys of the community. They are really nice guys and will always help if they can.

 

Since I'm mostly rare with time for my hobby and I also finaly want to finish my home cockpit project I'm working on for decades now, I have no more time for it at the moment. I actually wanted to make the outside model of the newer advanced KA-50 and a complete new pit for the MI-28N version, also. I also started a bit work for an AH-1F/S Cobra, cause it's my alltime favorite attack helicopter. But the home cockpit is my dream since over 20 years now and I have to focus on that to get it finished somewhere in future ūüėČ

 

If anyone has the mute to help with this project, just ask the guys from the community. It would really be sad if this old sim had to die. The graphics are aged, but I think they are still ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2020 at 7:01 PM, Ssnake said:

It's not as if Steel Beasts is a brand new game in the simulations market. The number of jet pilots among the Steel Beasts users, while not zero, is not large. What makes you think that if the ground combat in DCS was more like Steel Beasts, these virtual pilots will suddenly all change their minds? A considerable fraction of jet pilots, real world or virtual, consider close air support beneath their dignity, deride the A-10, and give loving names like "mud hen" to the F-15. The theory that "simulation is simulation" is demonstrably false for the majority of flight simulation gamers. It's about flying, first and foremost. And there's nothing wrong with it. I'm just saying that based on my experience, the idea that if only you build a more detailed ground component the jet boys will come is not grounded in observable reality.

Hate to nercro an old quote, but I absolutely agree with this comment and would like to add more:

 

0. Simulation = Stimulation. For me, 'simulation' is a verb, and not a noun. Any piece of hardware can be used to 'simulate'. This is the first thing you learn when taking Dr. James Sterrett's class on Simulations & Wargames at the US Army Command & General Staff College. In his first lesson, students play Battlefield 2 (PvP) then discuss whether it is a 'simulation' or not. Most agree that BF2 is NOT a simulation, but then Dr Sterrett helps officers understand that any software can be used to simulate action, and that the role of the Simulations Officer is to achieve the training objective when using simulations as part of military exercises.  In the consumer aspect, I would rather refer to 'simulations' as "stimulations", because that is their purpose - to stimulate parts of the brain. The relevant point is that consumers will seek products that fill a desire to stimulate. It may not be specific to  'Armor', 'Infantry', or 'Air'- rather, a need to feel stimulus from a certain action/series of actions. 

 

1. Air vs Ground. Realistically, ground vehicles are designed for the common 18-year old off the streets to quickly learn and operate in combat - they have always been primitive machines. Planes are obviously much different, more complicated, and designed for those who can handle multiple systems concurrently. When applied to video games, I think there is an interest in the cognitive stimulus that is the result of managing multiple mechanical aspects of flight (all of the cognitive systems occurring) that cannot be replicated in tank simming. I think this is why we see such a large market for NON-Combat flight games. 

 

2. Purpose. Why does DCS Combined Arms suck? Because the developers have no reason to improve it. Their audience is more interested in modules like the F-16, F-18, and A-10, because of everything mentioned in #1, and because ground combat is not stimulating enough for folks who want to fly planes. Why should Bohemia, eSim, and Eagle Dynamics, Micropose, etc all work together? They are all have a different focus and are seeking different outcomes that rarely or do not intersect. 

 

3. "Combat". When talking 'combat' with combat flight gamers: their idea of combat is flying at 10,000 AGL or above and engaging targets up to 24 miles away using radar-based weapons systems that can engage beyond line of sight targets. Ground combat, on the other hand, is much faster paced, with engagements normally occurring within 3 km. Very primitive, and fewer cognitive systems to manage. In most modern tanks, you lase then blaze then keep moving. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm the exceptional case here but I like all kind of combat simulations. At the moment I'm building a "universal" homepit for use with DCS and Prepar 3D to fly fighter jets, attack choppers and even big planes like the C-130 Hercules or the C-17 Globemaster with in P3D.

 

I also added a more desktop like "WSO-Pit" with a HOTAS behind the homepit which can be used for a second person as WSO/RIO or copilot in flight simulations. But this pit is also equipped with a 128 key programable keyboard to put shortcuts for all other combat simulations to it. I also want to built my own tank controls for it.

 

So I like all kind of military simulations and I really don't want to decide which I like the best. Of course my main interest is in fighters and attack choppers but I also love tank, infantry and naval simulations and never want to miss them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Red2112 said:

 

 

Star Citizen, while being a Sci-Fi themed platform which makes it difficult to explore how realistic ballistics/flight models etc. are, is coming up with tech that just might support a balanced multi-crew combined arms experience. So nothing is imposible.   It might not use Newtonian physics yet, but that decision has more to do with gameplay, as docking on a stations docking ring with such physics just might overwhelm even the most hardcore gamers.

 

there was a DOS era sci-fi space shooter called Mantis, if i recall, which sold itself on using real newtonian physics; the perfect example where trying to achieve that made the game a commercial failure if not everything about the game was obscure and unpolished.

unlike the Star Wars ww2 dogfights as if there was objective gravity (star wars plane formations always meet in a horizontal plane, as if agreed upon by convention) and an atmosphere in space,

 

Mantis was too difficult to play and enjoy, ships would slip around as if on ice with simple turns as they tried to re-orient to one another with their thrusters. maybe for large star cruiser battles perhaps, dogfighting in space with small craft was impossible. it's probably infinitely better that

developers forsake 'realism' at some point.

Edited by Captain_Colossus
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

there was a DOS era sci-fi space shooter called Mantis, if i recall, which sold itself on using real newtonian physics; the perfect example where trying to achieve that made the game a commercial failure if not everything about the game was obscure and unpolished.

unlike the Star Wars ww2 dogfights as if there was objective gravity (star wars plane formations always meet in a horizontal plane, as if agreed upon by convention) and an atmosphere in space,

 

Mantis was too difficult to play and enjoy, ships would slip around as if on ice with simple turns as they tried to re-orient to one another with their thrusters. maybe for large star cruiser battles perhaps, dogfighting in space with small craft was impossible. it's probably infinitely better that

developers forsake 'realism' at some point.

In the case of Newtonian physics it¬īs even more notorious that a thin line exsist between realisim and gameplay/fun. I would Imagen even more so in the era (DOS) that your talking about with Mantis. I admit that the first time I played Gunship and saw the HUD on screen I was sold! But I have always been a flight geek I guess, but I again¬†Imagen that the fan base for these "hardcore" games of the era was limited.

 

I supported a title called Rogue System which uses Newtonian physics, it was a one-man-team project but the dev had a motorbike accident which caused him¬†some brain damage, and he has since dropped the project. At least that¬īs the story told. I was sad to hear the news about a¬†year¬†ago because I did have alot of faith in this¬†project. Some called it the DCS of space sims...

https://store.steampowered.com/app/366000/Rogue_System/

 

Children of a Dead Earth is another Newtonian gem...

https://store.steampowered.com/app/476530/Children_of_a_Dead_Earth/

 

Obviously, only for a certain type of fan base which usualy is a small one.

 

Red

 

 

 

Edited by Red2112
Link to post
Share on other sites

Syria map should be release today instead of September

 

DCS: Syria Map Coming 19 August 2020

We are excited to announce that the DCS: Syria Map will launch into Early Access on Wednesday, August 19, 2020. Ugra Media has put an extraordinary amount of work into this map, and we believe the Syria map videos have shown this. It’s an incredibly varied map with boundless mission opportunities.

 

source:

https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/

Edited by Galileo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have been looking at it and thinking of scenarios involving the Bekka Valley (making one already), Golan, the Damascus suburbs, the al Ghab Plain and as Safa. Maybe even a strike mission on Incirlik by US naval assets. All sorts of real and imagined conflicts there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Big download for the map 39Gb but I have a lot of fun flying around (Harrier). Got the F-18 and F-16  but the AV-8B is my favorite.

 

We need an assets pack (Daesh technicals Toyota, more SAM,... )

Edited by Galileo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

The latest DCS patch adds FREE WW2 Assets to DCS WOrld:

Quote

 

In order to broaden the appeal of the included missions for our WWII aircraft, we have included several WWII air and ground units as a free part of DCS World. The list of free WWII Assets Pack units include:

Aircraft

A-20G


AAA

Flak 18

Bofors 40mm


Tanks

Panzer IV

Sherman


APC

Sd.Kfz.251

M2A1


Truck

Blitz 3.6-6700A

Bedford MWD

 

While not Steel Beasts quality, it is nice to have these WW2 tanks.

 

Steam Community :: DCS World Steam Edition

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

The latest DCS patch adds FREE WW2 Assets to DCS WOrld:

While not Steel Beasts quality, it is nice to have these WW2 tanks.

 

Steam Community :: DCS World Steam Edition

 

"Free assets" gift, yeah right!

 

All the WW2 assets should had been free from the start. I mean, why wouldn't? You have DCS World with some, not great, but enough modern assets included. You can buy modern aircraft DLCs and maps DLCs to play with those assets. At the same time, you can buy WW2 planes DLCs and WW2 Maps DLCs, except that in this case you also need to buy WW2 assets DLCs. For me, it just doesn't make sense especially considering that if you look into the files, the physics coding, there is nothing in any of those assets to make them any value-for-the-money: they are all extremely simplified and more so the ww2 assets; DCS Combined Arms is rubbish, as is damage modeling, as is the AI and also is the computing performance when you have just a few of them in a mission at any one time. If there was a value-for-the-money assets DLCs, like a well developed, core upgrade DCS Electronic Warfare DLC which boasts an improved radar modeling and integrated IADS mechanics, I'd be more than happy to pay to the price.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
49 minutes ago, Bond_Villian said:

Do trees and terrain objects (buildings etc) block LOS for ground units in DCS yet? I had a look at it a while back and the fact that AI could see and shoot through everything was a total deal-breaker for me!

They did fix that about 2 years ago. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...