Pics from DCS

[JamesT73J]

One thing I will add is that Esim designed SB & ProPE from first principles to be an armour sim, and it shows in so many details.

This is far more important than it at first seems. I own Black Shark, and have many hours playing it. It's a superb flight simulation, but the weaknesses become apparent in the world outside the helicopter.

Trees are an issue - they are cosmetic and not collidable. Therefore you cannot use them as an attack helicopter would; the AI has LOS through them, and their weapons pass through them. Radar is not obstructed by buildings or structures, even if missiles are.

The AI has very limited scripted behaviours and if caught at weapons range will do little to avoid being destroyed, thus the player only has to feel out where the units are and engage them at range.

Such rules mean the player's tactics are decided by the game; the most efficient method of hunting in black shark is to hover at altitude and simply scan for threats and engage at the extremes of ATGM performance; the only threat to the player are other aircraft or radar guided SAMS, the latter of which the KA50 has no means to detect anyway.

It would all be very different if DCS designed it to be a helo sim from the outset; as it is many things are compromised. I'd be suprised if similar issues do not dog the ground battle, right down to the form of the terrain.

[AlphaOneSix]

Trees are an issue - they are cosmetic and not collidable. Therefore you cannot use them as an attack helicopter would

I absolutely agree that trees are an issue and I'd love to see them collideable and have them block LOS/radar/etc.

However, real attack helicopters to not use trees as cover, they use terrain features. Except in advertisements of course.

The biggest drawback to having trees as they are now is that they DO block YOUR LOS, but not the AI's. If they just blocked LOS/radar for the AI as well as human players, that would suffice (at least in my opinion). But it may just be easier to just make them collideable and be done with it. Not that it would be easy...

[Ssnake]

I've been mentioning this on numerous occasions. Unspoken assumptions in early stages of a product development have a very long reach. The fewer corners you cut early on in the project, the easier your life will be later. But you still have to finish your first project in a reasonable time frame, so some compromises simply cannot be avoided. So you will be haunted by the ghosts of your past, no matter what. Sometimes you're lucky and make decisions that don't turn out as an impediment for much of your later projects, sometimes you lose.

These old design decisions are very hard to revert, especially the longer you wait with changing them. This doesn't mean that a "lucky" team is inherently better than some other team. SB Pro works very well with armor, but adding infantry stuff (or, if we entertained the idea of it, fast jet bombers) is a lot more painful in many areas because you either have to rework the internal plumbing (with little initial gain, but great chances to wreak massive havoc on the code base because of implications that you didn't have on your radar screen), or you take the safe way and don't touch it, but try and find an acceptable compromise in a workaround.

(Of course, everybody has a different idea what an "acceptable compromise" looks like)

It is also worth of note that those applications that are based on "perfect" software architecture usually perform like shit - whereas well-performing real-time applications have all kinds of quirky optimizations that DEMAND certain workarounds in order to retain other qualities (like, a high frame rate AND a high screen resolution AND a long visibility distance AND a high terrain mesh resolution...)

[SeanPatrick]

Fascinating.

Having only written the simplest of programs for my TI-82 I have a little appreciation for this concept. What seems like a minor change to something as simple as...let's say...a menu can have the effect of messing up the coded references to those menu items causing the program to malfunction or worse, not work at all. This typically results in hours of combing through code to fix the references...or just saying F it and removing the change altogether.

I can only imagine how difficult it is to maintain the stability of a program while simultaneously maintaining a respectable level of realism and immersion. (Which, IMHO SB does very well.)

[Polak]

DCS Combined Arms manual is now available. Here:

http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.ph...5&d=1341931231

People here experienced and well familiar with features of SBProPE can now peel off some DCS hype. Even at very first glance obviously it is rather very basic script tool to make some targets move around. Still it is progress, which will be sure embraced and hailed by DCS community.

[AlphaOneSix]

People here experienced and well familiar with features of SBProPE can now peel off some DCS hype. Even at very first glance obviously it is rather very basic script tool to make some targets move around. Still it is progress, which will be sure embraced and hailed by DCS community.

If there is any hype to be dispelled, it was not created by the developer. Combined Arms grew out of a desire to allow a human player to play one of several additional roles in order to create a more realistic situation on the ground that does not have to be scripted into the mission.

Game Master. Can observe and play as JTAC and control ground units for both sides. The Game Master can view all units. As a Game Master, you can dynamically alter the ground war during the mission.

Ground Force Command (CM). Can Strategically control ground units in the battlefield. This includes indirect fire systems like artillery and multiple rocket launcher systems. Also has First Person vehicle control, including JTAC capability.

JTAC. Has First Person vehicle control, including JTAC capability, does not have strategic control over ground units.

Observer. Cannot play as JTAC or control ground units, but has unlimited camera access to observe the action.

The "community" does seem to have focused on the first person control of vehicles, and that is where a lot of the "hype" has come from, but I really see this as a secondary (and for the moment, kind of gimmicky) feature, while the big news is having in-mission, human control of ground units.

[Skybird03]

I'm glad to learn that some increase in effort to improve the SBP visually has been acchieved, to tease for something in that direction was the only reason why I posoted those pics. SBP all in all wokrs nice in suppliyng the player with a believably rolling of the terrain, viewing distances, and colour palette. But it does not become younger, with the GPU power of today the same effects can be acchieved with graphical elements that for themselves are not that dated anymore, but slightly more up to date. If that can be done without compromising gameplay, LOS and environment simulation, then why not? The looks of SBP are good, but beside the price, the looks are the argument I was given most often by people deciding against it. I defended the sim by telling them to weigh looks versus immersion, realism and gameplay, and I hooked quite some of them by that, but still: the looks are one of the two major factors that makes potentially interested people stay away.

[Panzer_Leader]

Thinking out loud here but, given how long this thread has run, should it perhaps be moved to 'Ground Zero'? After all, in this discussion forum you're supposed to "Discuss general topics directly related to Steel Beasts or Steel Beasts Pro PE". It may just be me but I'm getting a little sick of seeing posts relating to DCS every time I check in. Or maybe I'm just having a bad day.

[Tonywjones44]

Seconded.

[Skybird03]

Thinking out loud here but, given how long this thread has run, should it perhaps be moved to 'Ground Zero'? After all, in this discussion forum you're supposed to "Discuss general topics directly related to Steel Beasts or Steel Beasts Pro PE". It may just be me but I'm getting a little sick of seeing posts relating to DCS every time I check in. Or maybe I'm just having a bad day.

Probably the latter, since this is just one thread in a General Topics Forum, and it would be so easy for you to just not click on this thread's title. But when you click on "poics from DCS", what do you expect to see then? Also, as far as I'm concerned, the thread is pretty much related to SBP - to its graphical appearance, that is. That is why I posted it.

Nobody forces you to visit and read this thread, if you do not want, and I certainly did not mean to abuse anybody against his will.

[RogueSnake79]

I agree, should have been moved to Ground Zero 60 posts ago.

[Mogwa]

I'm always amazed that people feel free to come to the Steel Beasts website and stroke themselves over their favorite game that isn't Steel Beasts. What do you suppose would happen if I go to the ARMA or DCS or whatever website and start trying to convince them to buy and play SB? I'll tell you what would happen. I would be subjected to all sorts of forum abuse until the thread was locked and I was banned. And probably with good reason. The tolerance shown by those who run this forum is bordering on enabling this behavior if you ask me.

Mog

[Ssnake]

We at eSim Games are not afraid of other people's games.

I don't think that our forum users will abandon Steel Beasts in droves just because some other game comes along. I usually have several games installed on my computer, BTW.

Other games come and go. The inherent and unique strengths of Steel Beasts will prevail. :sonic:

[Mogwa]

You have the patience of Job. I have no doubts in ProPEs superiority in most categories that matter (at least to me), I just think its in poor taste to brag about other competing products here.

Mog

[AlphaOneSix]

I just think its in poor taste to brag about other competing products here.

Well I can't speak for ARMA but on the Eagle Dynamics forums (DCS) there is an entire sub-forum devoted to sims/games other than the DCS series called "Other Sim News"

Besides, what you consider someone else stroking themselves over their favorite non-SB game may just be an SB fan sharing a little bit of excitement.

Although I'd actually agree that starting a non-SB-related thread in the SB general discussion forum is in poor taste, it clearly should have started in Ground Zero where it could be safely ignored by anyone not interested in DCS.

[Werewolf]

Other games come and go. The inherent and unique strengths of Steel Beasts will prevail. :sonic:

No kidding...

How long has SB been around? 12 years?

Anyone think ARMA or DCS CA will still be around in 12 years?

[daskal]

Here is some battle scene from the beta - seems like Battlefield 3 with worse sounds and graphics... Actually I think this is just bad, I wasnt expecting a lot from this, but after watching these two videos I am very unimpressed:

SSQ6vfbIfyg?hd=1

7IaTX1wxNyg?hd=1

[dejawolf]

No kidding...

How long has SB been around? 12 years?

Anyone think ARMA or DCS CA will still be around in 12 years?

the ArmA series spans from 2001, so it's been around for at least as long as SB.

[Tacbat]

Anyone think ARMA or DCS CA will still be around in 12 years?

Yes.

[Ssnake]

Anyone think ARMA or DCS CA will still be around in 12 years?

If we count in all derivatives, (Operation Flashpoint, ArmA 1, ArmA 2, VBS, VBS2,... (and why should we not?)) then Yes. VBS2 has a strong foothold in the military training market. As long as they don't abandon the entertainment market, some VBS offspring will be around.

In any case, 12 years is such a long time, it's impossible to make a Yes/No prediction for either software that has an above 50% likelihood for verification.

[Apocalypse 31]

I picked up my copy of Combined Arms (beta) today.

After giving it about two hours worth of testing I'm giving it a big thumbs down.

Graphically, it's not TOO bad, but not too good either. The vehicle models look decent, buildings look terrible, troops look terrible (and have terrible animations). The terrain is good at like 5,000 AG, but on the ground level it looks horrible.

Command and control of vehicles is difficult; Apparently there's no 'follow' command for the AI. You can manually set waypoints on the map screen that the AI will follow in game, but you can have your tank platoon follow you in game without setting a map waypoint.

None of the vehicles have firing control systems, and they all have a funky aiming recitule, so you're basically just firing through a degraded system. It's weird, and I haven't been able to kill a single thing yet (except with artillery)

3rd person view of vehicles is too close, and you cant really see anything in front of you because of the amount of smoke that your vehicle is producing.

I do really like the command map; It's colorful and easy to navigate through.

I'll keep my eye on the game, but I'm not going to touch this again until it's a full release. I'm new to the DCS franchise, but it seems like they care about feedback that their players give, so hopefully in the end it'll be a good product.

[krause]

You guys are missing the point. They threw in playable tanks as a gimmick to steal from the SB/arma2 fanbase.

What I am really interested in is the JTAC and the overall command stuff. It will finally add an element of dynamic to DCS - which is notorious for terribly predictable and boring scenarios. Won't be at the same level as Falcon 4, but you could potentially have an interesting engagement if there was no scripted ground movement and a player was in control of prosecuting an attack or a defense, plus no AI JTACs and human only.

Also DCS could care less about player feedback. Theres been a constant request for a dynamic campaign for years and anyone who brings it up is banned or "negged" by the gang of forum trolls over there. I was "negged" by wags when I said its a questionable business model to sell a product which existed in the dcs a-10 beta for $30. The JTAC was playable in the beta and it doesn't look like they changed much at all.

[Apocalypse 31]

You guys are missing the point. They threw in playable tanks as a gimmick to steal from the SB/arma2 fanbase.

I'm not sure I believe that. And if thats the case, then ED has a long way to go.

I think there is serious interest in a game that can offer a true combined arms simulation, and I hope that ED can do it with CA. As I posted above, they have some issues they need to work through.

[Tacbat]

Still waiting on Nevada.