Combined Arms update

Combined Arms 1.5 Develop update

http://youtu.be/QbtPL27O7e8

Purty!

Excellent!



The Jedi Master

Awesome. Realistic tank FCS is definitely on my CA wishlist. Hopefully next they'll add automatic lead adjustment.

Nice, it will be even better with the EDGE graphic engine.

I am impressed that they are making efforts to improve CA. Kudos!

Indeed. It'll be infinitely better having a detailed terrain mesh so that ground vehicles can have cover to use. Right now, with the low-res black sea map terrain mesh, you're basically driving around a huge, flat parking lot all the time as the poly faces are so huge.

Yeah, it's very immersion-killing depending on where you are. Some places it's not so bad, others it's quite jarring.

Cities/towns and airports/ports are decent enough, you expect them to be flat. Of course, then you want higher-res building textures when you're there.



The Jedi Master

Interesting news (sorry google translator)

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1993181&postcount=10


http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1998023&postcount=3293


http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1998235&postcount=1711

So you're saying that if I get tired of flankers being spawned from the Carrier, I can send my Carrier Group over to start a ruckus with them?

think that's what they have planned.

copied from the DCS sticky. (post from wags)

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.



Edit
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'd say "it depends". To devote resources to improving CA to the point of making new ground modules that could be used for F-18 or EDGE or higher priority stuff, then no. If these people can't do that for whatever reason, or there's downtime while something is helping elsewhere that they're filling in with CA stuff like this, then fine. There's no point in them staring at the walls.




The Jedi Master

I am gonna step out on a limb here and say the guy programming the FM for a modern fighter, isnt the guy they want programming a armoured unit and all its systems, and neither of those guys are the guy they want programming EDGE... but that is purely me assuming... All three of those things are highly specialized, and while there may be some cross over in some areas, I think they need specific people or teams for each of these...

I would think it really wouldn't make that much of a difference; it's all in the same language, and that just boils down to a series of functions and systems models. I don't know if you've read any of the stuff Scott Elson has written on here, but when he worked for Jane's, and other game developers, he did a little bit of everything. I would figure so long as you leave good notes and documentation about how the code is being utilized and what solutions are being looked at, I would think that a good software engineer could jump from one part of the project to another fairly easily.

It doesn't quite work like that - there's always a learning curve when taking up the coding of subject matter that is different from what you usually do.

Yes, but there are limits to how many people you want working a particular thing. So you don't want 50 people all working on MP code for instance, too many fingers.



The Jedi Master

Here is a quote from Wag's on the subject as I asked him about this today:

"The guys working on CA features are solely assigned to that part of DCS. In no way do CA projects impact the development time of other DCS efforts like aircraft, maps, etc. The continued effort in CA is part of our strategic goal of having the best air, land and sea simulation ever done for the PC."

I like where DCS is heading, the electronic battlefield with combined arms is pretty much the holy grail since Spectrum Holobyte started to envision it on PC's back in the Falcon 3 days (IIRC they called it EBS).

Lets hope ED are able to pull it off in a not so distant future...

/KC

Agreed.

+1.

I get the feeling they're hunting for a government contract again. Remember, we've yet to see ED release a DCS product that wasn't born of a government project.

I know they're working on the baby bug, but I can't fathom how they're generating sufficient cash-flows right now. The previous two products, the Huey and hip, weren't theirs (although I presume they charge a commission of sorts on third party modules?) and I can't see the A-10A or SU-25 modules being big sellers as they're (by ED's admission) essentially what you get with FC3.

So to me, it's possible they're hunting contracts again.

Indeed it is the Holy grail.
Micropose we heading towards a similar project with Gunship and tank platoon,
unfortunately for Games fans Hasbro bought out micropose and that was the end of that project.
Realistically DCS is the only company who could do it but it would take a major overhaul of there Game engine.

DCS: P-51D
DCS: UH-1H
DCS: Mi-8
DCS: Combined Arms
Flaming Cliffs 3


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wCENdyC2pQo/UqcqzV4I3FI/AAAAAAAANHU/av_uwloqLw4/s1600/MargeCarMeme.png

The graphics engine is getting overhauled. Other stuff will come in time as well.

So as I figured, the CA stuff isn't at "the expense" of the other stuff. These people are separate and it's not a great idea to just transfer people around, especially if they're modelers and not coders and you don't want them messing with code.




The Jedi Master

You're right on the P-51D, I forgot that.

The UH-1H and Mi-8 aren't ED's. They're Belsimtek products.

I don't consider DCS Combined arms a "DCS level product" insofar that it's not a detailed systems focused study of an aircraft (or piece of armor). Also, wasn't CA part of a gov project as well (or at least a bid for one) to train forward observers?

Flaming Cliffs 3 isn't a DCS level product. In name or practice.

Didn't ED actually say a while ago that they were going to be more specific with how the DCS label was applied?

In any event, let me restate:

We haven't seen a DCS level modern combat aircraft developed by ED that wasn't initially developed to fulfill a government contract.

How do you figure it's not at the other stuffs "expense"? Unless it's a third party, that means ED used it's -by their own admission, stretched- resources to hire developers for a new project, but not devote them mid-stream projects.

I understand that only so many people can work on a project at a time (one woman can make a baby in 9 months, but 9 women can't make a baby in one month and all), but if a company like EA can put thousands of developers on a title, than I think there's room to put more resources to current projects at ED.

Put another way, current projects are paying the opportunity cost of expanding CA.

From a retail standpoint, it doesn't make business sense to me, as the F/A-18C is (presumably....hopefully) closer to production and thus generating cash flows. This tells me this is part of a bid to make the sim a more fertile ground for contracts.

But I don't think ED is REALLY aiming to make the Abrams analog to DCS A-10C. I think instead they're going to pitch DCS World as an e-battlefield desktop sim.

Among both modern militaries, big business, and tweens, the latest thing to have is connectivity. A connected battlefield means lots of complex systems talking to each other, and lots of soliders who need to know how those complex systems work. It makes sense to teach people these systems on desktop sims first, as it imparts a basic understanding of the e-warfare environment before training on more complex (and expensive) simulators and live exercises. I think that's the angle DCS is best prepared to approach this market from, anyway.

Not trying to be smart... they admitted it.
Now there's a bit of way in believing everything you read online, but you have to draw a line somewhere.
And despite some shortcomings, I've yet never been lied by ED.

If you ever heard Wags describe - or read how he describes - DCSW, then you'll understand 'any vehicle, any era, any fidelity'.

I want my DCS: Airwolf.

Afterburners! Passing thru Mach 1! Launch Hellfires!




The Jedi Master

Manpads CA 1.2.8
http://youtu.be/KaTfW3zboAQ

Radar CA 1.2.8
http://youtu.be/rqPq2-rLxMk

Playing SAM in an MP server is looking a little more tempting now. Did they ever fix CA's UI with wide aspect ratios?

Some Combined Arms 1.2.8 Beta RC2
http://youtu.be/HF9O2o5jUTU
http://youtu.be/256YR3d8les
http://youtu.be/86_gzceR948
http://youtu.be/pSrfnUMAExc

Some 3 months after this thread started I'll admit I thought "1.5" would have been done by now, but I'm not really surprised it's not.




The Jedi Master

we are 1 step closer to infantry, man pads is like 30% feeling like a 1st Person Shooter.

The Jedi Master

Is it worth picking this up for armored warfare, yet?

+1


If dynamic lead better ballistics/ armour values/ better sound
Were implemented it would make CA a half decent tank sim I don't think it will ever be up to SB
Standard but having CAS and many of the other features of DCS World would compensate.
Some are speculating they may produce a full M1A2 module.
As a die hard Armour milsimer It would not bother me if ED did not implement the full turret interior.
Its great to look at but realistically you spend most of your time looking through your optics or on the map view

From ED Facebook, update to DCS: W 2.0 CA

https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics?ref=stream

Holy bejeezus.
That looks amazing!

When Combined Arms looks like that down low, I'm picking it up and grabbing an M1. Looks great. Hope it's soon, but considering how long everything is taking, who knows.

Hubba hubba hubba!

I took a screenshot in the current version, under the same conditions, for comparison:

Gosh, like that is even clearer.

I am ready to wait the for the release!

What a difference self shadowing makes on the terrain.

I don't think terrain self-shadowing has been implemented in the Georgia map - what you're seeing is higher contrast shading, which still looks great.

Look at the hills in the middle of your screenshot. On the top, the left half of the hills is shadowed. The same part in the bottom picture doesn't have any shadowing at all, so it shouldn't be just more contrast.

Besides, shaders and shadowing is one of the features that shouldn't need a new map to implement. Disregard.

Wow! I was thinking it was self shadowing too...

I'm respectfully asking- honest, no sarcasm- how can you tell it's high contrast shading... and... what the hell is high contrast shading!?

Thank you in advance for your patience!

That's because the left half is facing away from the sun. Simple gouraud shading would also give this effect, and it has nothing to do with self-shadowing.

There are a few other hints that the terrain isn't self-shadowing (take a look at all the areas that are in shadow and compare them to the sun angle - if the terrain slope is facing away from and steeper than the sun angle, it should be shaded anyway), but one area in particular stands out:



That little bit technically shouldn't be lit at all since it would be in the shadow of the taller hill.




I'm just referring to the fact that there's more shading contrast than what we currently have.

The key term here is shading, which in computer graphics is a way of lighting an object based on the angle of the face relative to the sun. If the face is perpendicular to the sun, it is fully lit, and if it's parallel or facing away from the sun it's fully shaded. It doesn't take into account any objects which may be blocking the sun. It looks identical to self-shadowing in all cases except at very low sun angles and very rugged terrain.

Self-shadowing, on the other hand, projects a shadow bitmap against the terrain from the sun's point of view and is much more cpu/graphics intensive. In the screenshot I posted, and in Remon's screenshot, shading is used because it's still pretty effective (ie. it fooled two people on this thread into thinking it was self-shadowing).



[created with Blender]

Of course, any of this is an improvement over the existing graphics engine where there's hardly any shading at all. The greater variation in tone in DCS World 2.0 is what makes the terrain 'pop' and I'm pretty excited to see it in game.

Ah! Got it! Now it's crystal clear!

I love rendering technique terminology. EDGE + CA looks prettier to be sure.

More from russian forum, new M-1 Abrams sights (Translate by google)

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2164301&postcount=138

More than any other part of DCS World, CA needs EDGE and Nevada.




The Jedi Master

Wowza! You got me there... two platoons of tanks versus two other platoons of tanks around the Nevada desert!

DCS CA had my curiosity, now it has my attention!

Agreed. It's the ground units who suffer most from the low-res terrain mesh. It's like fighting on a series of vast, 1km wide triangular parking lots.

The CA updates look great, but there are no news concerning all this 3d models? Hope they are added soon, and crewable!!

Video of some upcoming features.

Stratos, that models coming on future updates.

Thank you Remon for the YouTube, it is nice to see what's coming to CA

Any official word? And they will be crewable?

Realism aside, this is still miles behind Steel Beasts.

I'm interested to see if they'll incorporate playable infantry forces to make it a true combined arms experience.

ESim has been clear that Steel Beasts will not have infantry play ability

Really hoping they're doing something about the trees now then, since I foresee that issue being even more frustrating than sitting in an attack helicopter.

Its unlikely. Something similar to Steel Beasts will most likely be the closest it will get. The work that it would take to make a worthwhile infantry experience, I think, is beyond the capability of ED. They simply dont have the manpower for it. As it is, CA is very much a side project already. Although with the potential release of new helicopters I hope that ED takes a second look at infantry to make it a more worthwhile experience for helo pilots. Right now its a bit static.

New music to Combined Arms by Btd.

https://youtu.be/_lEyfuyMOuQ

Btd Soundcloud channel.
https://soundcloud.com/btd

Could you imagine Steel beasts as a module for DCS world.
I know at least one of the developers was in favour of such a co-operation
It truly IMO would have been something special.

Pseudo Radar PIP and fire control on Sa-15 1.5.1 Beta
https://youtu.be/ufQeq_2X614

Nice, if they simulate getting an EWR feed and a suitable switch on engagement radar delay we have an exciting air defense role.

Wait, is this user created content or it's vanilla?

Vanilla

WOW