Troutish

Well, there is talk in this thread about DCS wanting some sort of DC capability, but frankly, there is no evidence in the design of DCS products that suggests they see it as a priority. So yes, if there is a simpler, cheaper way to make a good quality DC I would be all for it. There were things going on in the F4 DC that were not really "core" features contributing to enjoyment of that sim.

Any pointers on which russian cluster bomb is best for enemy tanks? I'm not having much luck.

Here is my idea for a DC. First of all, I would start with the following assumptions: There are 2 features that are indispensable – everything else is in the “nice to have” category rather than the “must have”. They are: 1) Persistent game world where damaged and destroyed objects carry through to subsequent missions. The weather and the time need to carry over too, as well as supply state. 2) Mission outcomes need to be transferred from mission to mission – successes, failures, triggers fired etc. (I would point out that these two features would GREATLY enhance the way people currently use the mission editor as well) The first requirement is obvious. The second forms the basis for how each side prosecutes the war after the first mission. (I’m assuming that DCS would not want a dynamic campaign engine where the AI continually assesses whats going on at the strategic level and then generates or modifies missions on the fly, while the player is spawned in. This should be one of the lessons learned from F4 about what NOT to do with a DC) A success or failure for the AI on a mission would generally be something like, “has unit x reached objective Y”, and “what casualties did it suffer, or what resistance did it meet?” the AI can then make simple choices to continue movement, halt, withdraw, reinforce, or have a different unit move through that point, or take an alternate route. From the air it would appear that units are proceeding to their final objectives according to a sensible strategy. Success, rather than failure would be reinforced, although different units at different levels could certainly benefit from experience, morale and agressivness factors that influence their reactions. When these sorts of alternatives relate to the random, or near random generation of waypoints and orders, you have the bread and butter of a simple conflict with an aggressor and a defender. This by itself can create a plausible campaign that from the perspective of a pilot, is FAR more immersive than what we have now. A simple dynamic campaign (or campaign generator) is no less realistic than having to create our own campaign from scratch, or flying someone elses scripted campaign with limited branching outcomes. This kind of AI is far from “Rommelesque”, but I think most sim pilots would not scrutinize the behavior of vehicles, platoons, companies and so on up the line trying to figure out what exactly is going on. As long as he can modify his own missions, and possible the air missions for his side he should be happy. This is not a strategy game and our true opponent is not the top brass of the opposing side. It is the mid and junior level officers who are most directly affected by our flight/ squadron/ wing.

I dont see a DC as a 3rd party vendor product. It should be regarded as part of the core DCS sim environment - terrain - weather-editor- ground vehicles - multiplayer functionality -DC like these things it makes 3rd party aircraft more appealing, more fun. you know, if 3rd party aircraft become common, the vendors might not be thrilled if DCS keeps making aircraft - it puts them into a competative relationship. They might want DCS to enhance the product in a way that compliments their new aircraft- and a DC certainly fits that bill. It is also clear in this thread how people have wildly different expectations about what a DC should be, and how many resources it would take to develop it.

Ahh.....so the right to offer criticism must be earned? If you have not yet done XYZ then STFU!? I'm familiar with the editor, with online squads and online play. I'm not asking for tips on how to get more enjoyment out of DCS, I'm simply pointing out what is, IMHO, an obvious short-coming of the product. I believe there is a much larger market for a good quality flight sim like this one than most people realize. I cant think of a better way for DCS to get and retain customers than by having somthing like a DC.

Go about what? ;-) People only criticise when they care - otherwise they stay quiet. In other words, its when your wife STOPS bitching that you start to have a real problem..... I hate to sound like a crabby old man....but... when exactly did replayability go out the window? I too put the blame on scripted shooters that come with 8 maps. I long for the days of wasted hours...... IMHO, DCS is not that high on the replayability index. As more people install DCS world it will get easier for the devs to measure satisfaction based on the hours played, right? So....would it be possible for a third party to develop, right now, if not a DC, then at least a campaign generation "tool"? Somthing that let you (easily) stipulate orbats and victory conditions; then generated a first mission (that you could modify), and then the others thereafter based on mission results?

Well I'm not that dissatisfied as a customer, more....frustrated at what I see as an under-utilized asset. If I were a DCS investor I would make a DC TOP priority for the civilian part of the business. As sombody just said, the campaign itself does not need to run while the pilot is in the air, it can do its math between missions. And like in Falcon, the combat that happens BVR can be computed differently so as not to choke your PC. As to using the mission editor myself, I actually dont want to know the forces I'm up against, what their plans are, or how my supiriors are planning to fight the war:smilewink: There are limits to how much random stuff you should put in your own missions. I also have to add that with this and other sims / games I can't say I've had the best experiences with player made content. A small portion will always be fantastic, but there are many that have a silly or unbelievable premise, are too hard/ too easy, buggy, etc. Frankly, many companies have fobbed off the provision of good content onto the "communty" and dont really provide it themselves. Or they think online play is sufficiently exciting so as not to require a DC. If you have a decent DC you dont really NEED player made content, and as I've said, replayability goes through the roof, for both online and offline play. For all its bugs, the fact that people STILL play falcon says all you need to know abou the value of DCs. Better jet sims have come and gone and yet falcon still gets played. I also think all the right lessons have been learned about what NOT to do with a DC based on the falcon experience. Importantly, none of these lessons discredit the basic idea or its value.

I think it is worth reminding people that while the DC in Falcon did indeed generate futile, non-sensical missions at times, it was a simple matter for the player to alter them, and play the game (if you wanted to) as a squadron or wing commander who had the authority to make strategic descisions. You also had the option of choosing what % of aircraft were assigned to different mission types. These two features effectively "boosted" the value of the DC and allowed fairly dumb AI not to hamper things Of course, you COULD just choose missions tasked to your squadron, and then survive the war as best you could (who says that the brass know wtf they are doing?) While you could sit back and watch the DC run a full campain, why would you, and is that why anyone bought the sim? Is that even a meaningful test of the campaign AI that is required? The lesson here is this: what most people really want is to immerse themselves in a major conflict and try to achive a meta-goal through individual sorties that mean somthing. To have the choice of playing like a squadron or wing commander, and think about how best to achive not just the mission goals, but the campaign goals too. Somtimes this means (as it did in falcon) conserving planes, pilots and weapons by NOT flying a mission, or by avoiding risky situations. It also meant that you hardly ever re-flew a mission after failing it, which as we all know is the bane of scriped missions and campaigns in any sim. If these are the goals, you might be suprised at how much fun people could have with even a very simple form of DC. I too would pay for a DC although I think that is entirely the wrong way of viewing things. The DC makes ALL DCS products worth buying and using. I dont fly the A10 I bought because I have NOTHING worth doing with it. Trout

NOT a happy camper... When i bought A10 a couple years ago I was thrilled with it. But after the second week i had played the campaigns, in the third week the missions, and in the fourth, I found the mission generator to be a little hum drum.. I've not played it since, and I have no plans to buy another DCS product for the simple reason there just ain't enough content. I cant get my friends to try it out for the same reason. The idea that a user friendly mission and campaign editor will create the conditions for tonnes of missions for everyone is NOT exclusive to DCS - other sim companies (Dangerous Waters for example) were based on the same faulty premise. If you look at the number of downloads here for the best missions and campaigns, its EXTREMELY low. What are the people who bought A10 doing? How many have stopped playing all together? It does not follow that a person who likes military flight sims ALSO likes mission design, and the only way NOT to get bored of DCS producs is to make your own missions. Falcon 4, in contrast, was a sim I played for THOUSANDS of hours over decade. Hell, I would have paid a monthly subscription for that, had it been an option! Dont tell me that DCS "wants" somthing like a dynamic campaign engine (which I've read before). Since they made this statement they have actually released a GROUND war simlator! WHich, I'm sure, is also lacking "content". What is tragic about this, is that the DCS aircraft, flight, avionics and weapons modeling, the ground vehicles, the terrain, is all absolutely fantastic and second to none. THe vehicle AI is more than capable of supporting a DC. But the lack of a DC severely limits this sim's appeal to a flight sim market. Trout

Thanks, BTW, does the SU25 not have a clickable cockpit? I'm not getting a clickable cursor. Also, where can i find a keyboard PDF for it?

OK, i have just installed DCS world, and I want to link my older copy of A10 to it. It is on the same drive but a different directory. Thanks Trout