Linking ArmA 3 with DCS/Combat Helo/Steal Beast

[Macadam Cow 1]

As some of you might know it's already possible to link VBS2 with Steel Beast (for example) using HLA/DIS gateway

The simulation send out signals via Gateways and then you will have Steel Beasts units showing up in VBS2 and Vice Versa.

EG. In VBS2 you may see a tank platoon of M1s (they will use the VBS2 models) but they are entirely controlled by SB or another system. Likewise you might see Inf, Armour or helos in SB and they will actually be controlled by VBS2.

It is also two way i.e. VBS2 Javelin Gunner can kill a SB T-72 etc.

video showcasing VBS2 and the Helicopter Collective Aircrew Tactical Trainer :

eK7Dta7-Nxo

Would you like to see this implemented in the ArmA serie ?

Would lyou like to see the devs invest their time and money into this features (at the price of others)

I'm not saying this should be done for ArmA 3.

I'm just asking if, in the future, you would like to see more cooperation between the -relatively- important studios of the simulation genre.

Same poll on Eagle Dynamics forum : here

Edited February 21, 2012 by Macadam Cow

[PuFu 4591]

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

[Macadam Cow 1]

So far 3 people have answered no...

Maybe because it's an expensive system and these people have zero interest in the aerial part of the game and thus would prefer to see the money invested elsewhere.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Macadam Cow

[kylania 567]

I'd love to, but you gotta realize that kind of interoperability is possible because it costs $700 for SB + VBS2 instead of $70 for A3 + DCS. Also the real life military paying for all the development for those sim products while many of us won't drop $10 on PMC to help fund A3. :)

[metalcraze 290]

BIS just buying eSim and ED will be better :D

Also people voting no are probably BIS devs themselves

[Macadam Cow 1]

BIS just buying eSim and ED will be better :D

lol I think ED and eSim worth much more than $15.000

I'd love to, but you gotta realize that kind of interoperability is possible because it costs $700 for SB + VBS2 instead of $70 for A3 + DCS

Well, X-plane supports it and it costs $78 :)

[thechaos 1]

I think it would be hard to do, but if BIS get the engine to degrade like in Take On Helicopters for all aircraft in ArmA 3 - it will support 40-50-60 km distances from DCS.

[giorgygr 61]

Of course yes.

I think i m speaking of a big portion of hardcore players who wants ArmA as the Base-platform for all kinds of operations.

Thanks to mods we already have enough detail in gameplay for the dismounted soldier.

Opening ArmA to the above Vehicle (ground/air) simulators,we open ourselves to a community of Hardcore Pilots and Tankers/so

guys that want the "MORE" (as I do) can achieve it.

I conclude

If Bohemia finds too much effort to provide accurate simulation for Air+Ground vehicles..at least it would be generous enough

to open the door to real vehicle simulators.

[dmarkwick 261]

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 :)

---------- Post added at 10:43 ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 ----------

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

For some crazy reason 14/20 people are currently voting no :D

Edited February 17, 2012 by DMarkwick

[.kju 3240]

The effort required is probably more useful to spend elsewhere.

[ProfTournesol 956]

My dream would be ArmA2/3 + Total War + Mount & Blade.

[Kostasalpo 17]

Imagine

It would be the total simulator !!

[roberthammer 582]

That's the problem , that you can only imagine - this is not possible

Edited February 17, 2012 by RobertHammer

[giorgygr 61]

That's the problem , that you can only imagine - this is not possible

I normally haven't got the mood to post further on this subject-but its pretty provocative when someone says

on my face :"this is not possible".

EVERYTHING on this earth are possible-as long people wants it to be.

So RH..plz give me a break..

[cas 41]

Shure this would be nice...

But to my suprise not even TOH is integrated in ARMA2.

That would be a good first step!

[NoRailgunner 0]

Too much pain for a little gain. But one can dream about everything... :p

[Αplion 1122]

Different games ... different game engines ... different developers ... different companies ... no bridge between them ... sorry ... but ... no-one give any attention to what players want in the industry ... now ... wake up (no offense).

[Undeceived 392]

But one can dream about everything...

now ... wake up

I guess that this is not dreaming but rather something like a comatose caused by being starving because of the lackâ„¢ of Arma 3 news. :)

Edited February 17, 2012 by Undeceived

[sgtice 10]

Too lazy to research the concept but sounds interesting. I LIKE IT!

[nkenny 1051]

They should totally, like, link The Sims and Arma. Because, like, one of them, is like, a social relationship sim. The other is totally a sim. It would make the game that much better.

I mean these games have so much in common! With enterable houses and people in them. What could the trouble possibly be? total realism for 2012!

Also Dota2.

-k

[b00ce 160]

Eagle Dynamics had a hard enough time getting DCS: Black Shark and A-10C to work together on line. Black Shark and A-10 use the same engine, the same map and more or less the same content. ArmA 3 will have none of the above in common with DCS. As much as I would love to see this, we'd either have to use the DCS/LOMAC map (Which would be fucking awesome, by the way. :p) in ArmA or the other way around, which really isn't an option because there is supposedly only one airfield on Limnos and there aren't any 3rd party maps for DCS. Not only that but you have to provide equivalents, at the very least, to each unit in both DCS and ArmA. This is the biggest hurtle, simply because you have to deal with making a TON of fully functioning content for ArmA that players can interact with and drive around in, no complaints here either, but it's a LOT of work for both sides that I'm sure they can't spare.

I'd rather see ArmA and DCS be as good as they possibly can be on their own, than compromise quality for the sake of interoperability.

[Tonci87 163]

I could imagine Arma ans Steel Beasts working together, but DCS and Arma are just to different.

[Dwarden 1124]

even linking ARMA 3 and TOH in MP is sort of dream-land ... now tell me how You going to achieve this for completely different games ;)

and i would be way happier to see our own flight game ;) (yay improved fixed wing FDM etc.)

don't quote me nor consider anything above more than wishful thinking

[Tonci87 163]

Take on Jets? Well I guess that we will see it someday. Before or after Take on Tanks?

[rye1 21]

And just before Take on UFO's... just after Take on Birds