Jump to content
EasyE

Steel Beasts and Esim working with DCS

Recommended Posts

Terrain seems to be the only real concern by some who have commented on the DCS forum/Sim HQ/SB forum.

Tacom made some valid points on game play concerns.

But IMO if ever such a merger happened I could foresee a multitude of different mission Types for the pilots and the armour contingent. DCS has transport and utility playable Helicopters casualty evac missions recon missions shoot a scoot missions for the Arty etc.

I really don't think it would end up becoming a War thunder type of simulation/Game and That's just from a PE prospective I am sure if there were a military version it would have Great scope for training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's also common of computer simulations. When when was the last time you played a simulator where the player didn't become a quadruple ace, didn't destroy hundreds of vehicles or sink dozens of ships and generally pull off feats in mission after mission that usually have no precedent except for very rare examples? There is something that never quite translates when players routinely destroy entire armies or air forces in a simulation. I don't know to what extent that can be challenged by having human opponents rather than computer opponents, because there's still a great deal of artificial factors, including the way players behave in a game, but there might be some difference.

In other words, it doesn't necessarily prove that two game engines can't be merged or are incompatible because you might get these results, but it's more of an indication about what is artificial about simulations in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's also common of computer simulations. When when was the last time you played a simulator where the player didn't become a quadruple ace, didn't destroy hundreds of vehicles or sink dozens of ships and generally pull off feats in mission after mission that usually have no precedent except for very rare examples.

Um, last weekend.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showpost.php?p=264691&postcount=21

The convoy got trashed a couple of times.

Points from the AARs were included in subsequent iterations and by the end their TTPs were much better than when they started and they achieved mission success - just. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Thank you, for the clarification.

Object libraries, models proportions, animations, and a lot of parameters that can create quite huge discrepancies in the end. Just like the video showing SB Pro and VBS2 (soldier standing/not standing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Object libraries, models proportions, animations, and a lot of parameters that can create quite huge discrepancies in the end. Just like the video showing SB Pro and VBS2 (soldier standing/not standing).

It's not THAT bad. VBS and SB Pro is a particular pairing to the extent that both simulate the same tactical realm and therefore need to visualize everything identically. So, not only do you need an overlap with object libraries but also with lifeform animations and a network protocol that transmits which animation is currently on. So if any of that is missing, this gets quickly exposed/is very noticeable.

I could imagine that DCS would not bother too much with infantry animations to begin with.

The model scaling is probably a non-issue because every sim/engine would remain self-contained.

Consistency of line of sight calculations is a much bigger issue. You don't want a unit to hide behind some object or in some small terrain crevice in one simulation, and remain perfectly visible in the other because the object isn't there or a lower terrain resolution smoothes out the crevice.

In summary, I don't want to create the impression that it's all easy going if only ED would come to their senses.

Even if you can bypass a lot of work with the help of federating simulations via "network magic" there are still other issues that must be addressed, and each of them has the potential to be a show stopper (to the extent that it it might not perform well, or be otherwise unsatisfactory to the end user). But that's something you can find out only if you start a thorough and serious analysis, and maybe simply try out a few things to see how they work out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.

In the end, to make two totally different sims to work together, there is a lot of effort to be made in order to keep consistency.

People can wonder if it would be more convinient to develop a unified set of engines. In those difficult days it could be more interesting to divide the development cost and time between the different companies.

But, yeah, it requires to coordinate the development between each actors, wich is a gross waste of time and independance...

The combined arms bridge between softwares will remain a sweet dream for the hardcore fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems we're in the realms of pure speculation.

I did have one other idea that's a little out side the box..

What if DCS let esim fix /improve CA under some sort of licence agreement or partnership

Whether that Is a feasible concept technically or financially I have no idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems we're in the realms of pure speculation.

I did have one other idea that's a little out side the box..

What if DCS let esim fix /improve CA under some sort of licence agreement or partnership

Whether that Is a feasible concept technically or financially I have no idea

The principle issue is:

Are ED willing to pay eSim's price?

Factoring in eSim will not be concentrating on their core product, it will be a substantial price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, last weekend.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showpost.php?p=264691&postcount=21

The convoy got trashed a couple of times.

Points from the AARs were included in subsequent iterations and by the end their TTPs were much better than when they started and they achieved mission success - just. :)

That must be weighed against all of the other sim players out there right now saving the world by blowing it up.

My point is to say that I don't think in and of itself the problem is whether DCS (which admittedly I've never played) ought to be mated with Steel Beasts because the players on one side would be able to destroy hundreds of players on the other with impunity because of the respective differences in each of the games. This is an issue with simulations in general. What's implied here is that within DCS as a wholly standalone game, the players with the ground vehicles are still subject to one sided odds, you probably wouldn't need to add anything from Steel Beasts to experience that.

I'm not a pilot, I've never been a pilot, I've never had much of an interest in aviation apart from needing to get from A to B when I need to travel. But even someone like me can learn to play a flight simulation and with a few hours' of practice will be able to destroy another country beyond what would be predicted by war planners, beyond what any single real pilot would be expected to achieve or has achieved. Likewise, I remember playing a few modern and WW2 submarine simulations and by my score, I should be a multiple winner of the Medal of Honor.

This is the result of the limitations of simulations generally. However, this does not necessarily mean that certain features can't be fine tuned, or that referees can't be added. I don't what the practical solution is, my sense is that there is so much that can't be modeled even from an entertainment perspective- not least of which is the amount of boredom of doing nothing between battles, or marching from point A to B on long hauls, or digging in and hiding vehicles, duplicity, information warfare and the fog of war. After all, simulations always put players near the action with reasonably good information about the disposition of enemy forces. The basic supposition is that the mission has a firm resolution. Combat is inevitable. Are there DCS missions where the player flies out to the objective and finds no targets and has to return to base? Or does the player always find something nice to shoot up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That must be weighed against all of the other sim players out there right now saving the world by blowing it up.

My point is to say that I don't think in and of itself the problem is whether DCS (which admittedly I've never played) ought to be mated with Steel Beasts because the players on one side would be able to destroy hundreds of players on the other with impunity because of the respective differences in each of the games. This is an issue with simulations in general. What's implied here is that within DCS as a wholly standalone game, the players with the ground vehicles are still subject to one sided odds, you probably wouldn't need to add anything from Steel Beasts to experience that.

I'm not a pilot, I've never been a pilot, I've never had much of an interest in aviation apart from needing to get from A to B when I need to travel. But even someone like me can learn to play a flight simulation and with a few hours' of practice will be able to destroy another country beyond what would be predicted by war planners, beyond what any single real pilot would be expected to achieve or has achieved. Likewise, I remember playing a few modern and WW2 submarine simulations and by my score, I should be a multiple winner of the Medal of Honor.

This is the result of the limitations of simulations generally. However, this does not necessarily mean that certain features can't be fine tuned, or that referees can't be added. I don't what the practical solution is, my sense is that there is so much that can't be modeled even from an entertainment perspective- not least of which is the amount of boredom of doing nothing between battles, or marching from point A to B on long hauls, or digging in and hiding vehicles, duplicity, information warfare and the fog of war. After all, simulations always put players near the action with reasonably good information about the disposition of enemy forces. The basic supposition is that the mission has a firm resolution. Combat is inevitable. Are there DCS missions where the player flies out to the objective and finds no targets and has to return to base? Or does the player always find something nice to shoot up?

I do know that even with the low poly mesh terrain that is currently in the game, unless you are out in the open it is hard to properly ID a target in a high threat environment with anything but the A-10C. With a more high res mesh and greater density of objects and trees I suspect it will not get easier.

Attacking a Leo-2 platoon with Gepard and stinger coverage with a Su-25 is no easy task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Attacking a Leo-2 platoon with Gepard and stinger coverage with a Su-25 is no easy task.

And it wouldn't happen.

In the real world you don't get a single tank platoon supported by air defence assets.

In the 1990s a Bundeswehr Panzer division had some 36 Gepards and about 270 Leopards (the Soviets were similar with what 2 x ZSU23-4 per battalion [32 tanks] or about that).

The Gepards (like all air defence weapons) are designated to protect routes or key points or critical units (like HQ or CSS). "Ordinary" line units Leos, Marders, etc. don't get a dedicated air defence vehicle.

The only exception to this were the Soviets, with from time to time, a dedicated SA-7 operator in the their Mech Inf units.

Nor do you see Air Task Orders where one airframe is allocated to go out and neutralise one tank platoon.

Air is usually employed against these deeper, high pay off, targets (hence why the air defence clusters there) with the tactical impacts being that the land battle is shaped by the effect of the air.

So for example, the Soviet attack losses momentum because the reinforcements have to take a longer route, because the air power dropped the bridge on the direct route, not the Soviet attack losses momentum because the reinforcements themselves are specifically targeted a few Km short of the front.

The whole idea having a bunch of aircraft dedicated to support a friendly land unit is an aspect of the current experience where there is no Taliban or ISIS/ISIL "Air Force" or integrated air defence system so you can enjoy the luxury of cab ranks of close air support aircraft that basically have nothing better to do.

In the more typical Steel Beasts scenario of cold war gone hot or NATO vs RusFed there would be a host of more important targets to deal with before aircraft were released to just fly around and drop ordnance on random "micro" targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the apache Gunship and A10 were specifically designed

To decimate massed soviet formations.

That was there primary task in the GW1/GW2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought the apache Gunship and A10 were specifically designed

To decimate massed soviet formations.

That was there primary task in the GW1/GW2.

But one is designed as close support and the other is designed as deep strike.

Army aviation is always close support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And it wouldn't happen.

In the real world you don't get a single tank platoon supported by air defence assets.

No agreed but in DCS they can be and are scattered around to balance things out, and probably a great deal more if you have human tankers fighting and not wanting to eat a Vhikr every 5 min. That is the main point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No agreed but in DCS they can be and are scattered around to balance things out, and probably a great deal more if you have human tankers fighting and not wanting to eat a Vhikr every 5 min. That is the main point.

But if the force structures are skewed to "balance things out" then we have left "Simulation land" and are en route to "Game land" and therefore deviating from eSim's core market and design philosophy.

So maybe its not a bad thing that we are ...

Seems we're in the realms of pure speculation.
We decidedly are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if the force structures are skewed to "balance things out" then we have left "Simulation land" and are en route to "Game land" and therefore deviating from eSim's core market and design philosophy.

So maybe its not a bad thing that we are ...

SB has the flexibility to be what the player wants it to be, probably more so then DCS.

If a player/players want a hard core simulated mission based on real military tactics and Procedures that's there prerogative.

But there are some like me, That like the grey area between hard-core and game.

IE vehicles and weapons that perform like the real systems.

But have enough game play to keep the player/players stimulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i'm interested in sensable mission settings, 'cos besides the fun it also adds a training benefit. Having rotary assets in support, great. Having one or two fast air spoken in for a strike by my JTAC, nice. Having your platoon/company guarded by the whole divisions AD assets just that half a dozen jets can have something to play...yawn :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But one is designed as close support and the other is designed as deep strike.

Army aviation is always close support.

Oddly enough, this is actually backwards.

The Apache's mission was to conduct a deep attack against the enemy's second echelon forces so the enemy could not affect the main battle area. The primary targets within the second echelon forces were the mechanized and armored vehicles. The design of the Apache was to attack these targets 80 ~ 100 kilometers across the FLOT. The Army believed the acquisition of the A-10 by the Air Force would provide the close air support required for Army units.
Throughout the Cold War, as the Army transitioned to the AirLand Battle concept, they relied solely on the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps to provide CAS to ground commanders while the AH-64A Apache aircrews would shape the Corps deep battle area with deep attacks.

And from Joint Publication 3-9.03:

Army aviation units are organic to corps, division, and regiments and perform missions as part of a combined arms team. Army helicopter units normally receive mission-type orders and execute as an integral unit/maneuver element. Special situations may arise where attack helicopters are employed in smaller units. The Army does not consider its attack helicopters a CAS system, although they can conduct attacks employing CAS JTTP when operating in support of other forces. The preferred employment method is as an integral unit, operating under the control of a maneuver commander executing mission-type orders.

These quotes are from some Major's masters thesis in military studies where he argues, among other things, that the U.A. Army's doctrine needs to be updated to reflect current realities and the utter failure of the attack helicopter as a deep attack platform.

It's a good read, here's the link to the PDF: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA519290&ei=JGpcVJjrGMTbao7ZgZgN&usg=AFQjCNGgVuRNr7Gu6AhWbYXoaasZd17TAw&sig2=eevaBEI8q5N1HtuFPcRusg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attack helicopters as a deep strike platform seem odd indeed.

What i learned that (think not ISAF, but "symetrical warfare") they operate very close to the FLOT. Positions between or behind own troops prefered.

And yes. That i'd like to see in a "combined arm "simulation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Attack helicopters as a deep strike platform seem odd indeed.

What i learned that (think not ISAF, but "symetrical warfare") they operate very close to the FLOT. Positions between or behind own troops prefered.

And yes. That i'd like to see in a "combined arm "simulation

You are observing reality, of course. This is how attack helicopters have *actually* been employed in all but a very, very few cases. Surprisingly, however, the printed doctrine is still that attack helicopters are a maneuver unit in and of themselves and they should be employed in battalion-sized elements with specific missions of their own, and not directly in support of other units. The reality, of course, is that attack helicopters get pieced out to support ground units with *their* objectives, and the mission of the attack helicopters is support of the ground commander's mission, while doctrine, to this day, still supports the idea of the attack helicopter battalion as its own maneuver element, with its primary mission being "deep interdiction".

The article I mentioned is an argument that doctrine needs to shift to reflect reality, and give up on the idea of an attack helicopter battalion (or larger) performing deep interdiction attacks on its own (which the U.S. Army has attempted only three times in its history and only succeeded once).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if the force structures are skewed to "balance things out" then we have left "Simulation land" and are en route to "Game land" and therefore deviating from eSim's core market and design philosophy.

So maybe its not a bad thing that we are ...

+1. :smile2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The article I mentioned is an argument that doctrine needs to shift to reflect reality, and give up on the idea of an attack helicopter battalion (or larger) performing deep interdiction attacks on its own (which the U.S. Army has attempted only three times in its history and only succeeded once).

Well we came close in Rolling Thunder Mission 2 where the ground forces shaped the RusFed forces into a primarily ARH / AH-64 Engagement Area.

13394902893_22e538022f_o.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reality, of course, is that attack helicopters get pieced out to support ground units with *their* objectives, and the mission of the attack helicopters is support of the ground commander's mission ....

Now, from an historical point of view, this sounds rather familiar. :heu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×