DCS M1A2 SEP?

[pvtkramer]

I wonder why Matt Wagner is seeking information on the M1A2 SEP for Eagle Dynamics/DCS?

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=121008

[Marko]

I wonder why Matt Wagner is seeking information on the M1A2 SEP for Eagle Dynamics/DCS?

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=121008

Seen the post.

But I would consider that a conflict of interests. Ha

I was tempted to advice him to purchase SB.LoL

[Mirzayev]

We are looking for detailed information on the M1A2, preferably SEP update, to include:

Inter-Vehicle Information System (IVIS.) The IVIS system allows for the automatic and continual exchange of information between vehicles. By incorporating information provided by an on board Position/Navigation (POSNAV) system, unit commander's can track the location and progress of subordinate elements automatically, without tasking vehicle crews. In addition enemy positions can be identified, plotted and disseminated, while reports and artillery requests can be automatically formatted, transmitted, and processed. Lastly, map graphic control measures and operational orders can be rapidly distributed via the IVIS system.

Seems legit!

[Marko]

Seems legit!

There's a lot of innuendo about them improving CA on the DCS forums.

I even seen a post about a possible Tunguska module.

DCS are good a what they do, (Air warfare) but they have a long way to go if they want

To match SB, Personally If I was in charge of DCS I would scrap CA altogether.

Start again or contact Esim. I nearly got banned for saying some thing similar on the DCS

Forum

[Tacbat]

I'm still waiting for my Nevada map.

[Flying Penguin]

There's a lot of innuendo about them improving CA on the DCS forums.

I even seen a post about a possible Tunguska module.

DCS are good a what they do, (Air warfare) but they have a long way to go if they want

To match SB, Personally If I was in charge of DCS I would scrap CA altogether.

Start again or contact Esim. I nearly got banned for saying some thing similar on the DCS

Forum

It always makes me smile when it is implied that a couple of detailed tank models (which I'm sure could/will come) will pull DCS level with SB in the ground combat arena.....

I'd love to see DCS come on leaps and bounds in land warfare, as much because I've played every Eagle Dynamics sim since the original Flanker and I want to see them succeed, as for the benefit of healthy competition for king of the land warfare hill. But they've got a very (although not impossibly) long way to go.

Cheers,

Jamie

[Marko]

It always makes me smile when it is implied that a couple of detailed tank models (which I'm sure could/will come) will pull DCS level with SB in the ground combat arena.....

I'd love to see DCS come on leaps and bounds in land warfare, as much because I've played every Eagle Dynamics sim since the original Flanker and I want to see them succeed, as for the benefit of healthy competition for king of the land warfare hill. But they've got a very (although not impossibly) long way to go.

Cheers,

Jamie

As much as I enjoy SB I would also like to see a real competitor to the throne.

Variety is the consumers friend. but realistically I really don't see that happening

The Tank simulator market is just to small To attract the investment.

We mite possibly get a few pretenders, Or may be DCS will step up and create some

Top notch Tank module's but as we know there's a lot more to armoured warfare then Realistic looking 3d models. they would have to radically change there game engine

May be I have got it wrong its just my opinion.

[Mirzayev]

Combined Arms doesn’t model the M1A2′s advanced ballistic computer, but a key press will – after a nailbiting wait of a few seconds – give me a target’s range, allowing me to lift or lower my sight appropriately before firing.

The above quote, taken from a review, sums up my thoughts on DCS Combined Arms. It just pains me that the same company that put out the most realistic A-10 Warthog simulation commercially available would put out a product that, in the words of the creator, "is NOT designed to be a realistic combat ground unit simulator. It is designed to be a game with a very shallow learning curve."

It just seems like for the audience, they are putting out the wrong product.

[Shane]

So we have an A-10, P-51, and "light" ground combat game. An F-18 in progress and a Las Vegas map.

Maybe next they will go for a combat diving module and yachting simulator.

How about just ditching the ground sim stuff and maybe focusing on an AH64 and Kiowa?

[Ssnake]

---

Edited February 25, 2014 by Ssnake
Breach of privacy.

[Flying Penguin]

Apparently Wagner's "found source" is a copy of SB Pro PE. :heu:

Nice research effort, there. I should probably take this as a compliment, but somehow ... I just don't.

Really? :confused:

[Grenny]

Apparently Wagner's "found source" is a copy of SB Pro PE. :heu:

Nice research effort, there. I should probably take this as a compliment, but somehow ... I just don't.

Hope he at least bought it...

[Marko]

Hope he at least bought it...

He probably took the one month temp licence.

When he sees how good a real tank sim SB is

Maybe he will reconsider bad choices he made in the past. ?

[Magnum50]

It's funny how defensive SB Pro PE Players and even eSim Staff can get whenever someone even mentions other work here, I remember the unjust attack on that American Armor guy who's making his own game, thought it disgusting the way he was treated here.

What is the concern?

DCS will never be the tank sim that SB Pro PE is, so what if they want info on a tank... they stated long ago they are putting ground units into their series to bring immersion and a total war feel to the game, the primary goal of the ground forces is to support the air combat that they model.

Don't worry folks, I don't believe SB Pro PE will ever be beaten in the land/armor combat.

[Marko]

It's funny how defensive SB Pro PE Players and even eSim Staff can get whenever someone even mentions other work here, I remember the unjust attack on that American Armor guy who's making his own game, thought it disgusting the way he was treated here.

What is the concern?

DCS will never be the tank sim that SB Pro PE is, so what if they want info on a tank... they stated long ago they are putting ground units into their series to bring immersion and a total war feel to the game, the primary goal of the ground forces is to support the air combat that they model.

Don't worry folks, I don't believe SB Pro PE will ever be beaten in the land/armor combat.

In Fairness Magnum.

If you had put the time and money in Esim have

You would probably be pissed as well.

As for the American armour guy there were allegations that he used content from the SB Mods section for use on his project with out asking first.

Personally I respect the guy for what he is trying to do a single guy trying to build a Tank Sim.

But taking with out asking. Is a big no no here.

[SiThSpAwN]

Apparently Wagner's "found source" is a copy of SB Pro PE. :heu:

Nice research effort, there. I should probably take this as a compliment, but somehow ... I just don't.

This is simply not true.

[Marko]

This is simply not true.

I assume you can back up that statement.

[SiThSpAwN]

I assume you can back up that statement.

Soon as the OP offers up proof of his statement.... but I wont be holding my breath on that.

[Grenny]

Well, it'll be hard to proof anything about sources beyond suspicion...and suspicion can be completely wrong.

I have to agree with Magnum, we surely get overly defensive about SB and how great it is (which it is ;-) )sometimes.

This might tell the public:

A: we are truly dedicated to this sim

or

B: We are a bunch of fruitcakes.

So, having this in the back of your head while typing posts, might avoid conclusions towards B.

[RogueSnake79]

It's funny how defensive SB Pro PE Players and even eSim Staff can get whenever someone even mentions other work here, I remember the unjust attack on that American Armor guy who's making his own game, thought it disgusting the way he was treated here.

You know that guy admitted to using sound files recorded from ours right? No, I guess not. He admitted it, and then did the right thing, and quit using them.

BTW, I'm thinking about starting a new website, The Simmer's HQ.com. I know just the place to spread the news, and even have a nice civil discussion about it..

You of all people know how this starts, and ends.. Why jump in, and start throwing punches?

[Invader ZIM]

I don't mind taking a little bit from column A and column B, IMO, nothing wrong with being a fruitcake that's dedicated to this sim.

[DarkLabor]

I have to agree with Magnum, we surely get overly defensive about SB and how great it is (which it is ;-) )sometimes.

This might tell the public:

A: we are truly dedicated to this sim

or

B: We are a bunch of fruitcakes.

Eeehh I don't know...

I would be C and a little bit of D.

C: We are pissed by to see potential titles depicting badly or totally wrong the way tanks are.

D: We are tired to see people marketing a product as authentic where it is pure BS.

[MDF]

Clearly, the DCS squad know how to make an exacting system-level simulation of aircraft. I assume this will translate well to a ground-vehicle context, but my concern is simulation of the more intangible tactical aspects of ground warfare. Because it is made primarily with a military audience in mind, SB has an unusual attention to tactical detail, which comports with my personal preferences. (I mean, I love the fact that SB has MilStd control graphics!)

Supplier competition generally is a positive for consumers. But I fear that the DCS Combined Arms system is going to end up as SB-Lite (which I do not want) and siphon online players from the already small SB community. Secondarily, I worry that DCS' ground forces are going to serve as mere appetizers for unrealistic densities of sophisticated fixed and rotary-wing assets. If you're commanding an armor/mech battalion and a company of AH-64s or Ka-52s show up, your day is completely ruined. Possibly true even if its only a 4-ship flight. Is the DCS community going to be able to serve up enough ground-forces players to balance out all of the flyboys?:confused:

I'm not really sure what to make of America's Armor. From what I see online (admittedly I have not done a deep dive on this), it looks like a 3rd-person perspective WoT with Abrams and T-64s, albeit with perhaps a somewhat greater amount of system and tactical detail (no outlines of out-of-LOS tanks!) I do believe I have read the developer's statement that he does not intend to compete with SB in terms of accuracy so, again, this is not promising for me personally.

[GGTharos]

Disclaimer: I moderate and test for ED. I also own a previous iteration of SB (I haven't assigned funds to getting 3.x yet, but I will as soon as I can).

Clearly, the DCS squad know how to make an exacting system-level simulation of aircraft. I assume this will translate well to a ground-vehicle context, but my concern is simulation of the more intangible tactical aspects of ground warfare. Because it is made primarily with a military audience in mind, SB has an unusual attention to tactical detail, which comports with my personal preferences. (I mean, I love the fact that SB has MilStd control graphics!)

Wags asking for the info doesn't necessarily mean they will be modeling a tank. They've asked for information about things before and there has been no related project.

Supplier competition generally is a positive for consumers. But I fear that the DCS Combined Arms system is going to end up as SB-Lite (which I do not want) and siphon online players from the already small SB community. Secondarily, I worry that DCS' ground forces are going to serve as mere appetizers for unrealistic densities of sophisticated fixed and rotary-wing assets. If you're commanding an armor/mech battalion and a company of AH-64s or Ka-52s show up, your day is completely ruined. Possibly true even if its only a 4-ship flight. Is the DCS community going to be able to serve up enough ground-forces players to balance out all of the flyboys?:confused:

I don't see anything wrong with 'sim lite' of anything. Not everyone is interested in a very deep simulation for a bunch of reasons. As for using the sim unrealistically, I've used SB unrealistically (Gasp!).

None of this siphons people from realistic simulation. Why? Because people interested in realistic simulation tend to have the same mindset that you have ... and they are also in the minority. The peeps at DCS are interested in both the hi-fi simulation, and the casual folks that want to take things up a notch from plain gaming.

As for ground forces vs. a 4-ship of helis ... you can always pack ADA with your formations, and be covered by A2A flights. I think you're the one oversimplifying this time But sure, often enough people want to shoot stuff - but how they enjoy their game is their business.

Neither SB nor DCS will intrude on each other's territory any time soon. I think you can figure out the reasons yourself

[Volcano]

I remember the unjust attack on that American Armor guy who's making his own game, thought it disgusting the way he was treated here.

I don't think you fully understood the issue, or maybe forgot. The AA guy was actually lifting sounds from SB to use in AA. So, other then stealing work from SB, I don't think there was much in the way of anger. And wouldn't it be justified to be angry in that circumstance? It is like plagiarizing in the literary community. And no, a trained ear knows when sounds are identical, no sound is recorded exactly the same twice. He was approached about this and (apparently or seemingly) stopped doing it, so that was that.

Anyway, in regards to the discussion, it sounds like DCS is more or less just trying to get the IVIS modeled as a command interface for all units. SB wouldn't be a great source of information for that (as we use our own customized method).