Jump to content

DCS M1A2 SEP?


pvtkramer
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Well I'd love someone finally bringing the vision Microprose had with M1TP3 (or 'tank platoon!' and 'gunship' (ugh)) to fruiton.. though I suspect the armor guys will not have half as much fun as they thought they'd have (whole platoons blowing up by hellfire kills from 8km out.. yay). Hmm that is, is there a AH64 out (or planned)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'd love someone finally bringing the vision Microprose had with M1TP3 (or 'tank platoon!' and 'gunship' (ugh)) to fruiton.. though I suspect the armor guys will not have half as much fun as they thought they'd have (whole platoons blowing up by hellfire kills from 8km out.. yay). Hmm that is, is there a AH64 out (or planned)?

+1

Its true if ground attack aircraft were in SB

They would be an absolute game changer

Its a subject I have raised before, unfortunately is no easy task to implement them.

Because you would then have to include ADA/man-pads radar systems bigger maps

Plus I think the real army guys are scared of them. LoL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

That's true, but the RFI went way beyond the SEP's info systems (see Volcano's post above), to include details about most of the other crew interfaces.

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.

My comments were not intended to be critical of ED or DCS. Preference for sim detail is subjective, and I don't fault DCS for developing the product as they see fit or as any particular segment of the consuming public sees fit.

I do have to disagree on the "siphoning" issue, though. Right now, there is very little middle ground in the modern armor simulation sphere. There's Modern Warfare at the bottom of the scale and SB at the top. The only other choices are (1) Arma2/3, which is much closer to MW than SB with respect to AFV modeling, and (2) Combined Arms, which, from what I've seen, fits somewhere between MW and Arma. There is SABOW, but that features just two now-obsolete MBTs. So, there is a yawning fidelity chasm between SB and the rest. There is no Jane's "US Navy Fighters" or EA "Eurofighter" to span the middle ground between Hawx and Falcon 4 (to use a rather dated analogy). Simmers' preferences lie on a continuum. Sure, there is a hard core that would only leave SB for another sim with the same basic fidelty objectives. If ED supplies that "Eurofighter" middle ground, there undoubtedly are SB players who will opt for a little less switchology and perhaps a prettier terrain engine. Again, this is not meant as criticism of ED or these hypothetical hypothetical SB players. Just expressing my concern that the SB MP community will be diminished further.

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.
Well, if you have the regiment's entire complement of Tunguskas covering a single battalion, and 16 attack helos duking it out overhead, you are edging toward the fantastical (not saying it couldn't happen, especially the former, but it's a bit contrived and not the kind of authenticity that suits me personally). Again, this would not be ED's "fault" - the problem, so to speak, would lie with the mission designers and, I suppose, with the DCS multiplayer audience's built-in preference for aviation platforms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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). ;)

Isn't IVIS obsolescent now? It was the original system allowing M1A2s to exchange some digital info with each other. Hasn't it been supplanted by FBCB2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Isn't IVIS obsolescent now? It was the original system allowing M1A2s to exchange some digital info with each other. Hasn't it been supplanted by FBCB2?

Yes, well, that is what I meant -- that they are likely looking to work on a battlefield management system for DCS, but that is just my opinion. :clin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true, but the RFI went way beyond the SEP's info systems (see Volcano's post above), to include details about most of the other crew interfaces.

Right, and there have been other RFIs like this that have gone nowhere, but they might not have necessarily been as public :)

My comments were not intended to be critical of ED or DCS. Preference for sim detail is subjective, and I don't fault DCS for developing the product as they see fit or as any particular segment of the consuming public sees fit.

I didn't take it as such, I was mostly responding in reference to sim-lite ... or sim-med...or however you want to divide it up :)

I do have to disagree on the "siphoning" issue, though. [...] If ED supplies that "Eurofighter" middle ground, there undoubtedly are SB players who will opt for a little less switchology and perhaps a prettier terrain engine. Again, this is not meant as criticism of ED or these hypothetical hypothetical SB players. Just expressing my concern that the SB MP community will be diminished further.

I think you will find that the environment of DCS is very unpleasant for the ground commander right now. :) There are things you cannot do - for example, right now armor has no counter-measures against any type of attack at all. No effective smoke for example, etc. So until and unless the devs at ED change this, it's a very different type of ground warfare and units get attrited brutally and quickly.

Well, if you have the regiment's entire complement of Tunguskas covering a single battalion, and 16 attack helos duking it out overhead, you are edging toward the fantastical (not saying it couldn't happen, especially the former, but it's a bit contrived and not the kind of authenticity that suits me personally). Again, this would not be ED's "fault" - the problem, so to speak, would lie with the mission designers and, I suppose, with the DCS multiplayer audience's built-in preference for aviation platforms.

I believe you under-estimate how much damage a good commander can do while fielding something like a Tunguska, a couple MANPADs, and if there's anything that flies at medium altitudes, an Osa or Tor or two :)

The 16 helis thing doesn't really happen much unless in some dedicated heli server, but, one thing's for sure, the gaming style is different and does not compare with what I have experienced at TGIFs. We do have some events like the TGIF, but they're not easy to organize and I'll leave further comment on that subject there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been in direct contact with Matt, and the matter is resolved. I jumped to conclusions, and should never have made it public to begin with. It was a lapse of good judgment.

ahh it happens.plus the way you handle things on the forum and respond to users questions pretty sums up that Esim is a class act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been in direct contact with Matt, and the matter is resolved. I jumped to conclusions, and should never have made it public to begin with. It was a lapse of good judgment.

Even the best have occasional lapses. Admission of a mistake and apologising for it shows true character. Of course, most people on this forum have never made a mistake and therefore have no need ever to apologise. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one even attempted to claim that the FCS in Combined Arms is realistic.

CA was billed as giving the ability to a human to control some aspects of the battlefield on the ground, and first person control was added because people asked for it and would enjoy it. No one said it would be realistic - quite the opposite, it was specifically said to be low-realism. Same thing with armor/penetration simulation and a bunch of other things.

I may as well complain that aircraft in SB aren't realistic ... without mentioning the FCS of the tanks. Have you seen the aircraft FCS' in DCS? Just saying. :)

The fire control system in DCS is......interesting.

I see Battlefield 3 as being more realistic.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...