Linking ArmA 3 with DCS/Combat Helo/Steal Beast

[jblackrupert 14]

No no, Canadian forces DLC. "Take off eh!"

[Egodraco 11]

I would absolutely love to have ArmA III and SB Pro to be linked together. My chief interest are tanks anyway, and I gonna go to the armored, so I will absolutely love them together. Whichever way it is SB Pro is on my shopping list, just as ArmA III.

[BadgerDK 10]

god i love these sort of polls...why would anyome say NO?

:ok:

Makes no sense to me either. "nah, I don't want your expensive military grade simulation protocols", wtf! Over at the ED forums people are voting no, what narrow mindedness...

[jblackrupert 14]

I think most of the no's are people who are more concerned about too many resources being taken away from Arma and possibly having another developer getting their fingers inside the game.

[PuFu 4600]

i also put my NO in the poll, just because i find it pretty stupid thing to ask (as in obviously YES answer). I am sure i wasn't the only one trolling these sort of polls....;)

[pathetic_berserker 4]

87 votes and 30 replies....A pol about remaining silent for fear of stating the obvious?... anyone?

Sarcasm aside it does bring to mind the question of just how things might be improved on the combined arms front. It would be great if we could have larger more believable areas of operation for the jets and heli's without comprimising the fidelity,details and imersion for the guys on the ground.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Pathetic_Berserker

[Macadam Cow 1]

i also put my NO in the poll, just because i find it pretty stupid thing to ask (as in obviously YES answer). I am sure i wasn't the only one trolling these sort of polls....;)

I'm sorry for my stupidity PuFu, I hope one day I'll be as smart as you are.

Anyway, and this might come as a big shock for you, some people don't want to see this happening, at least not now.

Since you've admitted you've trolled this poll, and might not be the only one, let's just take the results from the ED forums, where usually old members do not troll polls...

There, 25 peoples out of 75 have voted "no", some took the time to explain why.

And as I said in the third post of this thread -but I'm going to repeat it anyway since it seems really hard for you to get it- they would prefer to see the ressources allocated elsewhere.

EDIT : video showcasing VBS2 and the Helicopter Collective Aircrew Tactical Trainer :

eK7Dta7-Nxo

Edited February 21, 2012 by Macadam Cow

[BadgerDK 10]

Resources spent better in other places? The only reason, imo, you don't see it in Arma is to keep VBS' price tag up high.

http://www.calytrix.com/products/lvcgame/introduction/: VBS2, Steel Beasts and X-plane for crying out loud! X-plane has, what, a single developer?

http://netlab.gmu.edu/SRMP/gatewayDoc.php

I hope someone's smart enough to make a mod that will make arma part of the game I have always dreamt of playing.

Btw, trolling a poll is really bad form and a completely pointless effort :)

[[evo] dan 79]

I voted no as I just see it as an extra complication to the game that will only divide the community up. I'm not saying I wouldn't like to have it, I am just saying it isn't practical and would much rather have resources spent on other things like bug fixes.

[BadgerDK 10]

How will it divide the community?

Edit: I am sure the military doesn't think it will divide their community. I am looking forward to hearing the argument for this.

Edited February 21, 2012 by BadgerDK

[Macadam Cow 1]

Well he's not wrong.

It will divide the MP community between those who owns both game (I think this should be required, from an economical standpoint) and those who don't.

But basicaly this happens with every expansion/DLC, so nothing new here.

Also, unlike an expansion/DLC, this would actually attract new players.

[BadgerDK 10]

You are absolutely right; it would mean more customers for sure but there's no reason that anyone should own more than one game that supports HLA/DIS but I am sure a lot of people would want to try the other simulators.

(You said both games, there are more than two games that support this)

It does not detract from the Arma player base that some of the users also own X-plane or a DCS sim. On the contrary their insight and contributions might strengthen the community.

I still don't see how it would divide the community. And who cares? The community, obviously, is scattered as is. The biggest divider I see is the ACE mod. I'm totally neutral towards it, great for those who want it and use it but I am not seeing that division as a bad thing. Some people like flicking switches and knobs and reading manuals, some don't. If someone doesn't want to play with others, they stay in single player. And if someone wouldn't want to play with someone in another sim, then be it. I don't know what this call for homogeneity is good for.

[dmarkwick 261]

Well he's not wrong.

It will divide the MP community between those who owns both game (I think this should be required, from an economical standpoint) and those who don't.

But basicaly this happens with every expansion/DLC, so nothing new here.

It needn't divide the community at all. Anyone on the ArmA side of the game only needs the positional info from the server, and display an ArmA representational object. You don't need DCS to do that.

[[evo] dan 79]

It needn't divide the community at all. Anyone on the ArmA side of the game only needs the positional info from the server, and display an ArmA representational object. You don't need DCS to do that.

I guess working it that way wouldn't be too bad, I thought you would have to own the other games for it to work.

[Smurf 12]

Not many people play ARMA.

Even less play SB.

Even lesser could play it together.

So, nope.

[Macadam Cow 1]

It needn't divide the community at all. Anyone on the ArmA side of the game only needs the positional info from the server, and display an ArmA representational object. You don't need DCS to do that.

I understand that but you could imagine the devs would somehow force the players to buy the other game in order to enjoy the "ultimate battlefield experience". Not because it's needed but for the business.

I've posted this on the ED forums but I don't know if you go there frequently so I'm also posting it here :

Could you explain what makes DCS so different from Steal Beast that it would require the "workaround" you've suggested ?

Isn't it the whole purpose of LVC Game to "translate" the received information into something the other software can read ?

Using the RV engine to render the outside view of DCS would be a serious drawback. It isn't really made to handle the specific needs of a flight sim (view distance,...)

I have little to no knowledge of these things but from what I understand the workload isn't exactly split in half between the 2 softwares.

From the little sketch I've posted in the first post it looks like LVC game relies more on one engine and the other software is "simply" plugged into this.

I think it's safe to assume ArmA could "easily" replace VBS in this sketch but why DCS couldn't replace Steal Beast as easily ?

Why would this create DCS approximation of an ArmA map while it doesn't occur with VBS+Steel beast ?

Don't want to bother you but if you have some time I'd be glad to learn a lil bit more

(You said both games, there are more than two games that support this)

Yes but it's not because a game supports this system that it can automaticaly be linked to another one. I think they need to share a "common ground" (= same map, knowing which model from game A will use which model from game B,...)

Edited February 21, 2012 by Macadam Cow

[maddogx 13]

How is what DMarkwick posted a "workaround"? That's pretty much how HLA works: different simulations handle different entities and share information about these entities via HLA, so that each side can display representations of them in their respective engines. This way someone with DCS could, for example, fly his helicopter around in the DCS engine while people playing Arma3 (or VBS or whatever) see a representation of that helicopter in the RV engine. On the other side, the DCS player would see some representation of the units from the Arma3/VBS simulation in his own game. Neither side would need both games in order for this to work.

Edited February 21, 2012 by MadDogX
sime additional clarification

[Macadam Cow 1]

lol no I was referring to this post :

I've written before on this subject, and I reckon it could be done. As we know it already CAN be done, and if there's one area that *needs* more simulation aspects I'd suggest it would be tanks. But flight sims could also be brought in, particularly ones like DCS BS that has a similar scale & environment to ArmA.

Consider that as far as ArmA goes, all it needs is positional, orientation, and inertial information from DCS to display an in-ArmA representation of the DCS craft. That sounds quite simple to do (relatively) and aside from that, the only other item as far as ArmA goes that it needs is fired ordnance information. That also sounds easy to do.

The difficult part would be the in-DCS gameview. It would need to somehow sync all the ArmA aspects into DCS representations, including the terrain. Anyone who has a DCS product will know that is definately the difficult part.

My own suggestion would be a system where the DCS machine has to run not only DCS, but ArmA as well, and it replaces its outside view with one rendered with the ArmA engine. So it acts as a DCS simulator as far as the aircraft goes, including flight dynamics, but the outside view is rendered in the ArmA engine and displayed instead of the DCS outside view (which can be discarded for the session). The physical interactions like collision would need to be initiated in the ArmA engine and passed into the DCS engine. This would place a huge load on the DCS machine though, but it's the only way I can see it working properly. Otherwise we'd be talking about a DCS approximation of an ArmA map, which IMO would introduce far more problems than it would solve.

The issue of how the DCS engine's various sensing equipment (radars & other sensors) picks up on ArmA entities is a little outside of my knowledge, as I don't know how DCS handles this aspect. Whether for example the entities have properties that the DCS engine requires, or whether the DCS engine can act on any entity that has geometry. Simply don't know about that aspect

I understand what HLA does but not exactly how it works and that's why I was asking to DMarkwick to elaborate a little bit.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Macadam Cow

[PuFu 4600]

I'm sorry for my stupidity PuFu, I hope one day I'll be as smart as you are.

one day mate, one day....

Anyway, and this might come as a big shock for you, some people don't want to see this happening, at least not now.

Since you've admitted you've trolled this poll, and might not be the only one, let's just take the results from the ED forums, where usually old members do not troll polls...

There, 25 peoples out of 75 have voted "no", some took the time to explain why.

I don't really care about the ED forums to be honest. Moreover, having dwarden state that it is very unlikely to link products made by the same company BIS, and that is out of the question for such a cooperation, this thread sort of turned into a very dreamy wishlist.

Anyways, i have read the OP before i posted right beneath it, and there text about resources in favour of other features was added a bit later.

All in all, i really doubt BIS would allow its (rather thin) resources to be spread on such a task, in favour of finishing their own product. Call me a believer if you like

I understand what HLA does but not exactly how it works and that's why I was asking to DMarkwick to elaborate a little bit.

And still, you created a poll about it...

[Logan9773 10]

Yes.

I'm an Arma2/ACE2 and a DCS BS / Warthog sim player. These two sims plus Steel Beasts being joined together seems very natural.

As for how it works, I think it is like you said Cow, they are "plugins". Since Arma has the best terrain for ground, I think it would be the base and the map. Warthog / BS and Steel Beasts would be the plugins. All that would be taken out of those two games would be the cockpits. Their would be an exchange of data between the games about the ground surface and objects in Arma, and all models would be from Arma. The exception would be the cockpits in DCS and Steel Beasts, which those gamers would see on their machines pasted over the Arma World.

I think the problem comes when a DCS player or Steel Beast player leaves the cockpit. You'll have to jump into Arma somehow, and there comes the trick where we may have to be running the two (or more! ) games simultaneously. Also if they ejected.

But maybe this Link company has figured that out already. We really need more information of how this works and would it be possible, as quite honestly, the flight sim in Arma is primitive at best.

[noubernou 77]

Yes.

I'm an Arma2/ACE2 and a DCS BS / Warthog sim player. These two sims plus Steel Beasts being joined together seems very natural.

As for how it works, I think it is like you said Cow, they are "plugins". Since Arma has the best terrain for ground, I think it would be the base and the map. Warthog / BS and Steel Beasts would be the plugins. All that would be taken out of those two games would be the cockpits. Their would be an exchange of data between the games about the ground surface and objects in Arma, and all models would be from Arma. The exception would be the cockpits in DCS and Steel Beasts, which those gamers would see on their machines pasted over the Arma World.

I think the problem comes when a DCS player or Steel Beast player leaves the cockpit. You'll have to jump into Arma somehow, and there comes the trick where we may have to be running the two (or more! ) games simultaneously. Also if they ejected.

But maybe this Link company has figured that out already. We really need more information of how this works and would it be possible, as quite honestly, the flight sim in Arma is primitive at best.

Thats not how it works at all...

People in VBS2 see VBS2 terrain and objects, people in Steel Beasts see SB terrain and objects.

The same thing would be done in any sort of A3 <-> DCS linkage.

[Dwarden 1125]

On DCS forum someone posted nice post ...

"great so i can kill ARMA players from range of dozen to 100 miles before they can even see me? ... i like that idea"

which i think sum it up why it's not gunna happen ...

[noubernou 77]

Give us bigger maps and really nice sam simulation? :P

Or may tie in SAM Simulator via HLA too... :p

[dmarkwick 261]

On DCS forum someone posted nice post ...

"great so i can kill ARMA players from range of dozen to 100 miles before they can even see me? ... i like that idea"

which i think sum it up why it's not gunna happen ...

...except they won't be 100 miles away, and they won't see everyone ;)

[Tonci87 163]

And that it why you can´t link DCS into Arma. DCS plays on a much bigger scale. Just look at the size of the map, and they really need this size. Steal Beasts on the other hand would fit into the arma world...