Tank sim?

[JVM]

I wonder if th emost practicable solution would be not to merge naval/air/ground sims togetehr (too many impracticalities, and action timings too different) but make them "compatible":
- same engine
- able to communicate and to exchange positions/statuses in real time,as well as information/orders...

Then it would be needed to choose which sim you are playing: say for example the ground forces call for an aerial support, then another player using SoW on a common map will execute this task...
The player on the ground could perfectly well have a detailed ladscape typical of ground based games, as he is playing in its own game. On the other hand the air player does not need the same level of detail, which again is not a problem as he is playing on its own air game. All this would work the same way between an air and a naval sim!

To be solved:

- common maps with different level of details
- command and control system to define

But the result would be great and doable I think...

JV

[bf-110]

I played Steel Fury.Is quite hard for someone used to be a tanker of Battlefield games.It also looks a bit unfinished.

Originally Posted by Chivas

A tank sim wouldn't be any problem at all for the SOW maps. Tank battles didn't happen all over the map they happened in small sections of the front lines.

SoW tanks and etc have a quite high amount of detail.Totally different of IL2 tanks.If they work on the engine,maybe we can experience ground combats.But,still,infantry is needed for a better ground combat atmosphere.And not just static infantry,real AI infantry.

To have a naval sim at SoW would be far more difficult.If SoW tanks are already ultra detailed,ships,specially aircraft carriers and battleships will have an amount of detail that will crash the game even on the best computers.

Originally Posted by JVM

I wonder if th emost practicable solution would be not to merge naval/air/ground sims togetehr (too many impracticalities, and action timings too different) but make them "compatible":
- same engine
- able to communicate and to exchange positions/statuses in real time,as well as information/orders...

Then it would be needed to choose which sim you are playing: say for example the ground forces call for an aerial support, then another player using SoW on a common map will execute this task...
The player on the ground could perfectly well have a detailed ladscape typical of ground based games, as he is playing in its own game. On the other hand the air player does not need the same level of detail, which again is not a problem as he is playing on its own air game. All this would work the same way between an air and a naval sim!

To be solved:

- common maps with different level of details
- command and control system to define

But the result would be great and doable I think...

JV

Thats very interesting!
If Oleg manage to do that,we will have a real time WWII experience.There will be nothing like that in the games history!
But we should get back to reality for a while...

[esmiol]

Originally Posted by bf-110

Thats very interesting!
If Oleg manage to do that,we will have a real time WWII experience.There will be nothing like that in the games history!
But we should get back to reality for a while...

nothing like that? look ww2online call too battleground europe

[kimosabi]

Well if DCS Blackshark can share servers with Lock On FC, why the hell shouldn't this be possible? I like the idea and it would definitely contribute to the game experience. Only from my squad we have multiple people playing the World Of Tanks beta, for pete's sake. The guys that won't play it, refuse because it's not a sim.

[zauii]

Originally Posted by esmiol

nothing like that? look ww2online call too battleground europe

Not gonna happen. Someone mentioned the development time could be handled by 3rd party?
For crying out loud , if you expect say the quality of an FPS, the realism of a simulator, the graphics of say Unreal 3 & Storm of War on all fronts that being on the ground,
in air etc..and with high tech damage models and god knows what, and in the end a quality game with few bugs.. and a release date within the next 15 years..

Jesus it's just not practical, use your brains.'
But as i mentioned only way to do it is to scale it down tremendously and soften the realism factor,
aka Arma which by no means is anywhere near a simulator for instance in Air combat, let alone buggy as hell since it's such a huge open world game.

And the problems still exists.

1. Fun ? no
2. Practical/Doable ? no
3. Performance demands ? Insane (not talking netcode here)
4. Development time + quality? Insane
5. Ingame distances ? Not practical too much void,
6. Buggy
7. etc..

There is no reason to merge planes with ground combat, it just doesn't work in a realistic way.
Scale it down then it's do able, otherwise its not.. why do you think RO doesn't have airplanes and why do you think IL2 dosn't have Infantry Combat?
(if you can't think of the logic behind the answers then...)

By the way, BF1942 didn't do anything like this they did an Arcade shooter with planes, tanks etc
nothing compared to what you guys are dreaming and asking for.

[JVM]

Originally Posted by zauii

Not gonna happen. Someone mentioned the development time could be handled by 3rd party?
For crying out loud , if you expect say the quality of an FPS, the realism of a simulator, the graphics of say Unreal 3 , Storm of War on all fronts that being on the ground,
in air etc..and with high tech damage models and god knows what.

Jesus it's just not practical, use your brains.'
But as i mentioned only way to do it is to scale it down tremendously and soften the realism factor,

Please re-read thoroughly my last message...I said two different games, with different scales suited to the nature of each game, but able to communicate positions, status, orders etc. It seemed clear enough so I will not repeat myself...
It is certainly doable, and the common control would need work, but the net code to mention only this would not be more difficult than between several air simulations.
You obviously have to accept that if you drive a tank and get destroyed you will not spawn at the controls of an aeroplane...another tank, maybe?

JV

I believe I still have some brains left, thank you, and I even know how to use them (sometimes)

[Blackdog_kt]

We're not saying it's easy, or that it could be done without "watering down" some elements of each separate title for the sake of balancing out everything.

We're just saying that instead of playng ArmA2 with simplified FM/DM for aircraft, you could be playing something like Arma2 in WWII with better aircraft FM/DM than ArmA2, because it's already done for the starting title.
It wouldn't be a pure flight sim, it would be a combined arms game with the only difference that the airplanes are more accurate than the rest of the combined arms games, that's all.

Some people wouldn't use it, some would, but the bottom line is that there would be a market for that. There a lot of people who are flight sim gamers and they also play tactical shooters or strategy games.
We can't make a single game that has everything with today's technology, but if the engine is broad enough to be able to support different genres then it's easier to fuse elements of each genre into a combined environment.

It wouldn't be 100% tactical shooter, it wouldn't be 100% tank sim and it wouldn't be 100% flight sim. It would still be a compromise but a better compromise than the games before it, because it would all be based on the same engine. It's a purely technical point, 3 different games made on the same engine have a better chance of working together than 3 different games made on 3 different engines

[zauii]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

We're not saying it's easy, or that it could be done without "watering down" some elements of each separate title for the sake of balancing out everything.

We're just saying that instead of playng ArmA2 with simplified FM/DM for aircraft, you could be playing something like Arma2 in WWII with better aircraft FM/DM than ArmA2, because it's already done for the starting title.
It wouldn't be a pure flight sim, it would be a combined arms game with the only difference that the airplanes are more accurate than the rest of the combined arms games, that's all.

Some people wouldn't use it, some would, but the bottom line is that there would be a market for that. There a lot of people who are flight sim gamers and they also play tactical shooters or strategy games.
We can't make a single game that has everything with today's technology, but if the engine is broad enough to be able to support different genres then it's easier to fuse elements of each genre into a combined environment.

It wouldn't be 100% tactical shooter, it wouldn't be 100% tank sim and it wouldn't be 100% flight sim. It would still be a compromise but a better compromise than the games before it, because it would all be based on the same engine. It's a purely technical point, 3 different games made on the same engine have a better chance of working together than 3 different games made on 3 different engines

Finally someone with a bit of reason.
Yes true, but as always there will be compromises.

Just to give a simple scope when it comes to devtime issues, quality issues, disk-size issues.. it takes about 2 months to build a map in radiant which is the Quake/CallofDuty editor, it takes about the same for a quality map
in Unreal 3 engine which works in a similar fashion. Obviously the maps goes through different processes such as lightning, geometry etc. These maps are very very small compared to anything you seem to ask for in a full world,
these maps are usually only Blocks of a City yet take months to develop. So building a whole country with the amount of detail that is seen in RO,COD maps would be ludicrous, not to mention the map size..

DCS BlackShark is another good example. It takes Eagle Dynamics years to develop a product with one flyable aircraft, why?
Well all focus is on that area and that aircraft and that model/aerodynamics alone, and some people here belive in a ww2 ultimate multi-sim... pfff

Originally Posted by JVM

Please re-read thoroughly my last message...I said two different games, with different scales suited to the nature of each game, but able to communicate positions, status, orders etc. It seemed clear enough so I will not repeat myself...
It is certainly doable, and the common control would need work, but the net code to mention only this would not be more difficult than between several air simulations.
You obviously have to accept that if you drive a tank and get destroyed you will not spawn at the controls of an aeroplane...another tank, maybe?

JV

I believe I still have some brains left, thank you, and I even know how to use them (sometimes)

So you want two different games with interlinked stats, and that the world is viewed differently depending on if your a tanker or pilot?
Still the complexity is enormous for a project like this no matter what, in the end your just gonna get a watered down product.

The best thing is still if each game focuses on it's own niche be that Infantry & Tanks, Sub-sim or Flight sim, which
would ensure engine quality, adaption and development time is spent on the right things.

[JVM]

Originally Posted by zauii

Finally someone with a bit of reason.


So you want two different games with interlinked stats, and that the world is viewed differently depending on if your a tanker or pilot?
Still the complexity is enormous for a project like this no matter what, in the end your just gonna get a watered down product.

The best thing is still if each game focuses on it's own niche be that Infantry & Tanks, Sub-sim or Flight sim, which
would ensure engine quality, adaption and development time is spent on the right things.

Based on the same engine but with different ways of developing the same map...Is it difficult to understand? Blackdog and others grasped the concept easily....obviously the tank map will be a small subset of the air map, but detailed to the needed degree!

This is obviously purely hypothetical as far as I know...

I am tiring of this discussion, I have the feeling to talk with a brick wall! Try the "what could be done" instead of "cannot be done" attitude for a change...

JVM