RE: Request: Join CMO and DCS and Falcon BMS (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

exsonic01 -> RE: Request: Join CMO and DCS and Falcon BMS (4/22/2020 4:18:58 AM)

Interesting. So this idea was actually seriously considered in dev's mind and they already tried it. It is possible and doable.

But they just don't do that in normal version, only in pro edition...



SeaQueen -> RE: Request: Join CMO and DCS and Falcon BMS (4/22/2020 11:54:55 AM)

I knew you'd get this eventually! LOL



CV60 -> RE: Request: Join CMO and DCS and Falcon BMS (4/22/2020 7:04:28 PM)

quote:

I am coming to the conclusion that Command is very well suited to both retail and military environments. But the new interface with flight sims seems to be not that valuable in an operational setting. While Tacview does. It's almost like the add ons should have been reversed. Tacview = Pro; Flight Sim = Retail. Frankly, these things mean little to the old harpoon players. The database is everything and everything else is glitz. However, we all all love the new map layers!!


I can see some utility of the flight sim to military training-If you want to teach comms/doctine/coordination, especially across serivces. However, I really don't see much utility in the civilian market. The computing/communications power would be beyond the ability of most personally owned systems and would likely be useable for only the smallest scenarios. Additionally, modeling on the "flight sim" level all the aircraft in the database would be damn near impossible. Only a few platforms would actually be playable.



1nutworld -> RE: Request: Join CMO and DCS and Falcon BMS (4/22/2020 11:27:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV60

quote:

I am coming to the conclusion that Command is very well suited to both retail and military environments. But the new interface with flight sims seems to be not that valuable in an operational setting. While Tacview does. It's almost like the add ons should have been reversed. Tacview = Pro; Flight Sim = Retail. Frankly, these things mean little to the old harpoon players. The database is everything and everything else is glitz. However, we all all love the new map layers!!


I can see some utility of the flight sim to military training-If you want to teach comms/doctine/coordination, especially across serivces. However, I really don't see much utility in the civilian market. The computing/communications power would be beyond the ability of most personally owned systems and would likely be useable for only the smallest scenarios. Additionally, modeling on the "flight sim" level all the aircraft in the database would be damn near impossible. Only a few platforms would actually be playable.


There are so many people that seem to have the ability to upgrade or replace their current computers - desktop, laptop, whatever and good for them if that is the case.

I know for sure that I'd never be in a position to enjoy that functionality even for most simple scenarios, so if this becomes a CMO priority, I will be out of the market eventually, without a doubt.

Personally, I hope the developers continue to add things like better ground warfare adaptability, better air combat defense AI. (just catching a snipet of the CMO Professional twitch stream the other day, and in the scenario presented where the fighters in the air lost "comms" their default action was to spin in 360 degree circles within a very tight radius) Sorry that to the best of my knowledge isn't default fighter tactic to the best of my knowledge. Former or current pilots, please correct me if I am way off base. Just using that as another example of things that "should" be worked on...before attempting to cross-platform CMO with a DCS-type simulation, in my humble opinion. Not that I am an "important" figure in the CMO universe or anything.



SeaQueen -> RE: Request: Join CMO and DCS and Falcon BMS (4/23/2020 3:12:20 PM)

quote:


Just using that as another example of things that "should" be worked on...before attempting to cross-platform CMO with a DCS-type simulation, in my humble opinion. Not that I am an "important" figure in the CMO universe or anything.


That's what I think too. I'd be much more interested in things like discrimination of live and dead targets, smoke, land mines, obstacles, breaching, chemical warfare, improved logistics (e.g. destroying or running out of fuel on an air base means no more aircraft can be readied). Right now that sort of stuff is either assumed away or isn't there.



Primarchx -> RE: Request: Join CMO and DCS and Falcon BMS (4/23/2020 4:21:19 PM)

I'd like to add Sim Life and Lemmings to the interoperability matrix.



Gunner98 -> RE: Request: Join CMO and DCS and Falcon BMS (4/23/2020 4:37:26 PM)

quote:

That's what I think too. I'd be much more interested in things like discrimination of live and dead targets, smoke, land mines, obstacles, breaching, chemical warfare, improved logistics (e.g. destroying or running out of fuel on an air base means no more aircraft can be readied). Right now that sort of stuff is either assumed away or isn't there.



+1

Lemmings - now there's a concept...[sm=scared0018.gif]



Rory Noonan -> RE: Request: Join CMO and DCS and Falcon BMS (4/24/2020 7:00:46 AM)

I don't think I had time to articulate this properly during the stream; this is something that is and has been possible with Command PE ever since the TCP socket was implemented (well before my time on the team).

As Sharana highlighted earlier, an article from January 2019 made mention of this capability. It's not like we dedicated months of man hours to getting this to work while foregoing other development work (the constant updates should be an indicator of that), it's a tech demo to highlight what can be done with the existing features of Command PE. There had been significant interest in the idea from the community so we decided to publicly demo it. No need to get your undergarments tangled [:)]



Uzabit -> RE: Request: Join CMO and DCS and Falcon BMS (4/24/2020 10:59:34 AM)

While I certainly love the idea of "A game that does it all", I highly doubt an interface between CMO and DCS or Falcon BMS would be that much fun gameplay-wise in the end. It could be interesting to see how each system interacts with each other but a lot of work would be needed on both ends to implement all the details to reach a satisfactory level of immersion. Would it really be fun to play infantry in an ARMA-like game and have CMO-controlled cruise missiles strike a target kilometers in front of you? I'm not so sure about this.



thewood1 -> RE: Request: Join CMO and DCS and Falcon BMS (4/24/2020 5:02:01 PM)

I'll just point back to the Tacview integration. Whether it was simple or not to implement, it sure consumed and continues to require some significant time from the devs to to support it. And all that time spent on supporting something only a few people asked for who seem to have already moved on.



DWReese -> RE: Request: Join CMO and DCS and Falcon BMS (4/24/2020 8:58:00 PM)

Apache85,

I understand your explanation, so there is no need to go further into that.

That being said, can you please post (if you can) something to us (the fans of this game) and explain what IS actually going on?

CMANO exists, yet we were led to believe that it would no longer be furthered or supported. After that, much to our surprise, you have made some very consistent updates to CMANO all along, and those updates sort of mirror everything in CMO (with the noticeable omission of TacView). So, what is exactly is CMANO's role, as you see it?

Also, since CMO is now the flagship of this series, how will/does CMO differ from CMANO going forward?

Finally, it seems odd that you have two games that are essentially doing almost the same thing. Many even initially questioned whether they should delete CMANO because of hard drive space, yet when you displayed your demo the other day, it sure appeared that the CMANO base engine was being used, not CMO.

So, whatever information that you could pass along would go a long way toward answering some of the many questions that WE (the fans of this game) may have.

Thanks in advance.




kevinkins -> RE: Request: Join CMO and DCS and Falcon BMS (4/25/2020 2:48:53 PM)


quote:

I'd like to add Sim Life and Lemmings to the interoperability matrix


I vote for Orbitor. All kidding aside, it's the best free software ever. Very steep learning curve. But if you are into CMO you will learn the basics in a few weeks. It does not compete with CMO. Some fans of Command might want to check it out.

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/






1nutworld -> RE: Request: Join CMO and DCS and Falcon BMS (4/25/2020 6:10:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

That's what I think too. I'd be much more interested in things like discrimination of live and dead targets, smoke, land mines, obstacles, breaching, chemical warfare, improved logistics (e.g. destroying or running out of fuel on an air base means no more aircraft can be readied). Right now that sort of stuff is either assumed away or isn't there.


Those are great additions to the list of things to be worked on, specifically the logistics factors. Kill the fuel dump and that air base is no longer a threat for weeks or longer.



SeaQueen -> RE: Request: Join CMO and DCS and Falcon BMS (4/26/2020 2:17:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Uzabit
While I certainly love the idea of "A game that does it all", I highly doubt an interface between CMO and DCS or Falcon BMS would be that much fun gameplay-wise in the end.


A lot of people love that idea. Many have tried all have failed. The problem is that Command is really only good at one thing: the kill chain, and even then it has things that could be improved. It also has some limited ability to look at some types of sustainment. Ultimately, Command offers a high tactical perspective on warfare, is very technology oriented, and favors air and naval warfare still, even as the land warfare model improves. Command, fundamentally, is about hitting targets, killing people and breaking their stuff. At some point, warfare stops being about that, and becomes about politics, economics, logistics, scheduling and policy, and the fighting is just a symptom of that. At that level the questions to ask and the knobs to turn to answer them are completely different.

While I've seen attempts to handle that kind of stuff in Command, they've all been horrible and either produced results that weren't believable or else amounted to the scenario author TELLING the players what he thought then answer was, and expecting them to accept it as truth. A good scenario should never tell you how to fight the fight, EVER.

The other problem is that with "games that do everything," you run into the problem of too many knobs. After playing the same scenario over and over again, and asking yourself, "Did what I decide to do matter?" if there's too many knobs to turn, after some point, you're left saying, "I don't know!" and you're not really learning anything.

Since part of the entertainment value of games like Command is that they allow people to learn things and ask questions about some national security issues, that actually harms the game's value.



1nutworld -> RE: Request: Join CMO and DCS and Falcon BMS (4/26/2020 3:39:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen
Since part of the entertainment value of games like Command is that they allow people to learn things and ask questions about some national security issues, that actually harms the game's value.



That is honestly one of my concerns about the future of CMANO/CMO. How quickly do we get to that point?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375