Linking ArmA 3 with DCS/Combat Helo/Steal Beast

[Macadam Cow 1]

Well the ArmA map could be just one part of the DCS map. It's not like we were stucked in a 5x5Km square. 400Km² is a really nice playground for us and a comfortable AO for the DCS players.

Also I don't understand why people are focusing on the PvP aspect. When I think about linking DCS with ArmA I mainly think about cooperation opportunities. The PvP level for DCS player would be other DCS players, same with ArmA.

Of course it'd be nice once in awhile to hop in a Tunguska but even there I don't see where's the problem. Long range SAM use radar to spot their targets, not human eyes. So as long as the aircraft appears on the radar it doesn't matter if you can see it or not.

[-Snafu- 78]

IMHO, I'd rather see BIS expand the Take On series with Take On Tanks and Take on Planes.

That way BIS could improve the simulation of those areas like they have done to helicopters with TOH and possibly feed those enhancements into Arma 3. Plus, there are hardly any tank sims on the market and combat flight sims are usually extremely detailed (Strike Fighters 2 being the only one that comes to mind which hits a middle ground between realism and playability). These are gaps in the market BIS could fill like they have done with TOH by providing a tank sim and a combat flight sim that both strike a balance between realism and playability, have a mission editor, open to mods, MP/SP, support through patches etc. and DLC.

[Tonci87 163]

I also think that Take on Tanks should be the next Project for BIS. Go ahead and name three tank sims that are not totally outdated! You can´t. So I guess BIS would definately fill a gap with that.

[Logan9773 10]

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 ...

Pfff. That already happens in my single player missions. FIND COVER! 105mm Artillery = 8km range.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Logan9773

[Daniel 0]

I also think that Take on Tanks should be the next Project for BIS. Go ahead and name three tank sims that are not totally outdated! You can´t. So I guess BIS would definately fill a gap with that.

I agree. Let's see how in depth BIS are willing to go with their fire control systems in Take On Hinds. That should prove whether it's a viable path.

[jakerod 254]

IMHO, I'd rather see BIS expand the Take On series with Take On Tanks and Take on Planes.

That way BIS could improve the simulation of those areas like they have done to helicopters with TOH and possibly feed those enhancements into Arma 3. Plus, there are hardly any tank sims on the market and combat flight sims are usually extremely detailed (Strike Fighters 2 being the only one that comes to mind which hits a middle ground between realism and playability). These are gaps in the market BIS could fill like they have done with TOH by providing a tank sim and a combat flight sim that both strike a balance between realism and playability, have a mission editor, open to mods, MP/SP, support through patches etc. and DLC.

I agree with this. I would rather them improve Infantry in ArmA 3 & 4. Keep updating Take On Helicopters and putting those improvements into the ArmA games. Do Take On Tanks and Take on Jets and do the same with those. Although, you would also probably need Take On IFV and Take on Ship at some point.

[antoineflemming 14]

Well, to ALL. Before we get carried away with DLCs or possible Sequels for TOH like Take on Tanks, or Take on Ships, or Take On [Anything-Else-Not-Helicopter-Related], remember that this is in reference to Take On Helicopters. Take on Hinds is not some new branch of Take On. A Hind falls well within the category of Helicopter. TOH is a helicopter sim. Take on Hinds does not imply that Take On is branching out to non-Helicopter subjects. But, I doubt it. The most I'd expect is Take On Planes. Why? Because Planes can have a civilian aspect to them. Tanks can't. Take on Planes, well yeah, new game, sequel to TOH (or TKOH, I prefer TOH for Take On Helicopters, not TaKe On Helicopters), it's fitting, being closely related to helicopters and not being tied down to only military-related stuff. I think the series, when branching out, should stick to flying-related stuff. So planes and Helicopters. If not, and they branch out to other things, non-flying related, then I think they should move to doing other civilian-based stuff. So like Take on Cars or Take on Boats or something like that. Something that isn't necessarily only applicable to military stuff, like tanks.

But for something like improved tank simulation, why not just add those military-related improvements in ArmA3 (not at release, but in subsequent patches)? I'd rather see improvements to simulation of military stuff come direct to ArmA, rather than having to wait for a new game to come out, do all that PR, for each type of vehicle that needs improvement. Do it in ArmA3 and then move on to make just a tank simulation. But, better, do it in ArmA 3 and, somewhere down the line, make a DLC that is basically a tank campaign (or it could be a mod, so then it's free).

[noubernou 77]

There is actually only a few minor things missing from tanks in A2 right now, especially with ACE. The only really major thing is a consistent and improved damage model (though ACE does get around this, and will be much better once HitPart is utilized) and things like commander override and proper leading.

[Tonci87 163]

Take on Tanks would be a logical step, why?

The Tank modells are already there

BIS has much experience with making Models

The introduction of PhysX will make Tank movement realistic.

Tank Gameplay is already very enjoyable with ACE (But there are still major engine limitations)

There are no other semi proffessional Tank Sims.

Many people enjoy Tank gameplay

A Civilian version of Take on Planes wouldn´t be a good idea, there are enough well known civilian Flight sims out there.

The RV Engine is perfect for a game like this.

[rainbird 1]

would make me moist in my crotch if it did happen.

[dragon01 902]

Linking AIII with Steel Beasts is something that is quite unlikely to be done, but I'd still support this if it was possible. Unfortunately, ArmA III isn't likely to get support from military.

However, it might be possible to simulate tanks in AIII itself. As of now, they're mostly missing a better damage and handling model (which might already be improved in AIII) and full instruments simulation (I mean all this switchology present in a real tank). In fact, while damage model is undoubtedly the most important thing, an interactive, fully simulated cockpit would enhance the immersion immensely and make tank simulation "feel" much more hardcore.

In fact, I think BIS should invest some time in making interactive cockpits for all vehicles, so you can actually use every little switch and handle modeled (even if it doesn't do anything meaningful). This is something that really helps immersion.

[rainbird 1]

there is just not enough time and resources for any single company to develop a general military simulation like ArmA with the fidelity of a focused sim such as DCS. it's just not possible.

it would be cool if the "next generation" of sims would be developed around some form of unified military simulator framework. where each aspect of the sim (aviation, ground forces, ground vehicles, campaign manager, etc) could be developed in a modular way and each aspect of the game can be developed by separate companies which produce "plugin modules" focused on a particular aspect. of course, it would have to enable these companies to integrate compatibility with the system in a non-obtrusive way - so that it didn't interfere with their ability to sell their product as a standalone sim. making their product "compatible" with such a system would also be a beneficial commercial incentive, because customers would want their sims to work together in a unified way, but they could also work standalone.

it would be a huge logistic/technical challenge for the sim industry, but well worthwhile - at least as far as the end product is concerned (unparalleled fidelity in all aspects of the simulation universe). perhaps BIS (as the current leader of the general consumer milsim) could think about leading this initiative by designing the specification of this. perhaps they already are - i don't know.

Edited February 28, 2012 by rainbird

[noubernou 77]

Not until you get a unified world space will you have really good "plugin" type simulations. Hopefully engines like Outerra give developers something to take some inspiration from or use.

[hellfire257 3]

Don't do it!

ED will only drag ARMA down with their stupid decisions and master sever crap. I beg of you, do not let them excrete on your glorious creation, BIS!

[giorgygr 61]

Don't do it!

ED will only drag ARMA down with their stupid decisions and master sever crap. I beg of you, do not let them excrete on your glorious creation, BIS!

Hey ..who's that ED guy anyway?

[dragon01 902]

Eagle Dynamics, the developer of DCS series.

[shadowze 1]

Don't do it!

ED will only drag ARMA down with their stupid decisions and master sever crap. I beg of you, do not let them excrete on your glorious creation, BIS!

+1 , getting into bed with a company who's business methods could only be described as "dodgy" at best is NOT a good idea.

Bait and switch is the order of the day from ED software , and the stupiditity of their "marketing" department beggers belief.

How they released the DCS Black Shark 2 (the quest for more money) was an eye opener , most normal smart companies

would maybe ... advertise a new product before it is released to generate interest etc.

ED just announced here is our new game/patch one morning like it magically appeared on the server overnight......

[-Snafu- 78]

Well, to ALL. Before we get carried away with DLCs or possible Sequels for TOH like Take on Tanks, or Take on Ships, or Take On [Anything-Else-Not-Helicopter-Related], remember that this is in reference to Take On Helicopters. Take on Hinds is not some new branch of Take On. A Hind falls well within the category of Helicopter. TOH is a helicopter sim. Take on Hinds does not imply that Take On is branching out to non-Helicopter subjects. But, I doubt it. The most I'd expect is Take On Planes. Why? Because Planes can have a civilian aspect to them. Tanks can't. Take on Planes, well yeah, new game, sequel to TOH (or TKOH, I prefer TOH for Take On Helicopters, not TaKe On Helicopters), it's fitting, being closely related to helicopters and not being tied down to only military-related stuff. I think the series, when branching out, should stick to flying-related stuff. So planes and Helicopters. If not, and they branch out to other things, non-flying related, then I think they should move to doing other civilian-based stuff. So like Take on Cars or Take on Boats or something like that. Something that isn't necessarily only applicable to military stuff, like tanks.

Nobody has said BIS will be expanding Take On to planes or tanks but that they would like to see that happen or might be a good idea for them.

Where did BIS say they only want to do civilian stuff?

But for something like improved tank simulation, why not just add those military-related improvements in ArmA3 (not at release, but in subsequent patches)? I'd rather see improvements to simulation of military stuff come direct to ArmA, rather than having to wait for a new game to come out, do all that PR, for each type of vehicle that needs improvement. Do it in ArmA3 and then move on to make just a tank simulation. But, better, do it in ArmA 3 and, somewhere down the line, make a DLC that is basically a tank campaign (or it could be a mod, so then it's free).

1. It allows them to focus on that specific area instead of the wide range in Arma which time and resources have to be spread over

2. A separate game would bring in some extra revenue

[Defunkt 431]

I really think BIS missed a trick with TKOH. If they'd followed something close to the stand-alone expansion precedent set with OA they could have marketed TKOH to all the helo-enthusiasts interested in it now (as a stand-alone game) but also would have picked up a huge number of sales from their ArmA playerbase. I'm not into messing around in choppers enough to buy a game devoted to just that but I'd certainly have bought it to expand on the fidelity of my ArmAVerse.

I think they should have included the core engine upgrades (i.e. Pic-in-Pic) across the A2OA engine and 'lite' versions of the new chopper models for those who don't purchase it and maybe some hi-fi versions of the existing A2 choppers for TKOH owners. New terrains would have only been available in the TKOH game/editor as they're probably too low res to play ArmA on anyway.

[Tonci87 163]

Well maybe you´ll be able to link Arma 3 and ToH?

[rainbird 1]

+1 to Defunkt and Tonci87

[Charles Darwin 10]

arma doesn't need to integrate into other software IMO. Just make their own product slightly better on the simulation end for aircraft. ToH went a long way with helicopters just spend some time doing the same thing for aircraft, especially considering they don't need all that much work to make them believably simulated.

1. Make flaps work properly

2. introduce a better Flight planning system(MFD + improved hud)

3. Introduce more realistic missile behaviors(mando ish?)

4. CCIP/CCRP(dear lord how fricken hard can it be?)

5. remove god mode radar from aircraft that dont have radars in the first place

6. Realistic Targeting POD

most of these have been done in ArmA2 in some shape or another, BIS should be able to do them in a few weeks if they put their minds into it.

why DCS wouldn't be a good thing to link into ArmA

1. it would limit the number of people who could use assets

as a mission maker you would be troubled by putting assets like an A-10 into a mission like domination because you would know not very many peole who have arma..also have DCS A-10C

2. it would limit the available assets to ones that have simulators..A-10C/Kamov..that's about it for assets. Lock-On is not a great simulator either IMO You could add in FreeFalcon but then you add yet more game by another developer to link into now a 4 game spread. Could you use only DCS A-10/BS to control those aircraft and ArmA to control the others? sure..but then how do you balance out the bad simulator of ArmA to the great simulator in DCS?

So althought I would LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE to see something LIKE this in ArmA..this is not the route to take and until BI has enough money to spend to start developing tools that the US military has only been able to have for the last 10 years or so, it's not going to happen in ArmA. So instead I think the compromise is to improve the simulation in ArmA to a level that is passable

[noubernou 77]

A lot of this stuff BIS doesn't even need to do themselves, I'd be happy with them just giving the community the assets scripting, config, and model wise (thats not saying the models themselves though) to implement this on our own.

Actually now that we have some new commands, its quite possible now to implement the basics of HLA into Arma2.

[b00ce 160]

1. Make flaps work properly

2. introduce a better Flight planning system(MFD + improved hud)

3. Introduce more realistic missile behaviors(mando ish?)

4. CCIP/CCRP(dear lord how fricken hard can it be?)

5. remove god mode radar from aircraft that dont have radars in the first place

6. Realistic Targeting POD

1. They already do and it's noticeable.

2. I agree, however, using the map + GPS works just as well. Blake's PINS is pretty useful too.

3. Try ACE, they have it spot on. Mando doesn't have all of the functionality available in real life, that ACE adds, like the LOAL (Lock On After Launch) fire-mode for Hellfires.

4. Agreed, but it probably isn't as simple as it sounds... There's lots of math involved. Dumb bombs locking on is supposed to "simulate" CCIP. In the mean time, try Blake's PINS out. It's pretty nice.

5. It's a line in the config file "radartype = 0;" Hopefully the base class for all vehicles is set to zero, so the things that really have it can be the exception, rather than the rule.

6. More importantly, Moving turrets on fixed wing. ;)

Really, the only things that I want are working shock absorbers on aircraft and turrets on fixed wing, without the need for proxies. The rest can be modded in easily.

[Charles Darwin 10]

1. They already do and it's noticeable.

2. I agree, however, using the map + GPS works just as well. Blake's PINS is pretty useful too.

3. Try ACE, they have it spot on. Mando doesn't have all of the functionality available in real life, that ACE adds, like the LOAL (Lock On After Launch) fire-mode for Hellfires.

4. Agreed, but it probably isn't as simple as it sounds... There's lots of math involved. Dumb bombs locking on is supposed to "simulate" CCIP. In the mean time, try Blake's PINS out. It's pretty nice.

5. It's a line in the config file "radartype = 0;" Hopefully the base class for all vehicles is set to zero, so the things that really have it can be the exception, rather than the rule.

6. More importantly, Moving turrets on fixed wing. ;)

Really, the only things that I want are working shock absorbers on aircraft and turrets on fixed wing, without the need for proxies. The rest can be modded in easily.

1. Flaps work on some.. not on others..C-130 flaps, last time i tested which admittedly provided drag but did not increase lift at all, same with V-22..the A-10 works perfectly IMO

2. Sure if you want to put down 800 map dots :) Been wanting to test out pins just havent had the time :S

3. I meant more in terms of things like mavericks where you have to look for the targets instead of tab locking.

4. Reiterate my desire to try PINS :) It doesnt have to be "real" CCIP and CCRP..I would settle for semi convincing like the CCIP of Mando and what I have seen of CCRP in PINS

5. Doesn't solve having the god radar boxes in the hud :) Id rather have the radar up top than the god boxes in the hud

6. turrets on a FW? where would that help? lol