Dynamics Battlefield

A lot of people want a dynamic campaign, and people want too for multiplayer a dedicated server and apparently ED work on it...

 

But what we will have in the server ?

Just several mission, maybe really good and when every target are destroy the server will restart another mission ?

And so what, that all ? nothing more ?

I have an idea about that...

The first step for a dynamics campaign, new great possibility and experience for multiplayer, first step to multiplayer logbook and a big advantage for the future Combined Arms in multiplayer, and too a good thing for military version (but army will modified it for obtain a more realistic version i think)

 

The possibility to have a dynamic battlefield.

 

I explain.

A war situation with 2 dynamics coalition and neutral, one big scenario for start like :

Russian planed to conquest Georgia but US and European will help the Georgian Army to protect the territory, or another big war scenario, or just a terrorist control or anything else...

But the most important thing will be to assign a precis number of aircraft and other forces for every airport, base and airbase (other still neutral until one coalition capture it).

 

Every new player will create a pilot profile and if he die he must create another profile for this server, every player have an assigned aircraft/helicopter, country, grade and squadron but he can be transferred.

The airbase have a limited number and quantity of weapons, ammo, aircraft, helicopter, ground vehicle and fuel, only two way to obtain more its to capture it from enemy like steal material, fuel/oil truck or wait for sending of new units from US/EU coalition with real transport and real possibility to see it be destroy and more thing like realistic repair time for every ground/sea and air vehicle with necessity to perform maintenance (vehicle aircraft or boat not usable for a certain time) with real possibility and utility to spy enemy forces by performing reconnaissance mission with spy aircraft or to strike enemy base/airbase and during long time repair from damage caused by capture attempts and necessity to protect it, and everything that its not destroy in the captured base will be captured too.

Every captured base will permit to enlarge the capacity off storage for fuel, ammo, weapons, vehicle, aircraft and more, anything can be repair or reconstructed like tower control, aircraft hangar, fuel tank can be replace, runway can be repair and more...

The commander of the base can choose to give the material in over quantity to other base or inside secondary base but every excess of ground vehicle ammo and weapon will need to be store at the exterior of the base and if the enemy force decide to try to steal this material they will have a big chance to succeed.

 

Every player with a big combat statistic at General grade will have the permission to create its own base with FARP anywhere in the map (but if he try to construct in at the middle of the enemy territory he will have a big surprise...) with possibility to control and manage every units under its control, like create a flight plan and assign for any player/AI aircraft, ground vehicle or helicopter. If he capture an enemy base/airbase he can take it and give the ancient base to another new general.

Every General can create several secondary base but this base can always take the risk to see enemy force steal material vehicle and other important thing but any commandant and superior player can control the secondary base with a limited control and the general can too chose to create an extended base to any existential base/airbase, for base with FARP any general can take helicopter but can too take an A-10C from the closest airbase.

An ejected pilot will really take a good importance for rescue mission, same thing for reconnaissance and cargo aircraft finally...

 

Any player if the General are not connected can control the utility of any base under attack, the enemy force can't begin a strike if no enemy general are connected (for avoid to see massive attack without any chance to stop it cause just 1 or 2 player are connected) or why not switch from player to AI but without any action when no player will be connected for avoid AI war...

 

Any pilot with good grade can control if he want an AI flight like player, wingman and flight element but same thing with player who want that, just lets us the possibility to give order to another player an possibility to set player aircraft to wingman or flight element.

Any General or Commandment will obtain data from reconnaissance mission and for avoid guy who want to cheat, just set at invisible every enemy unit not detected with external view.

Possibility to set player as ATC with good radar view and advanced labels for identified every aircraft easily with interactive order specific to ATC.

The Radar view will be with every actual flight and reconnaissance mission a best way to spy enemy forces and to protect our controlled territory.

Every mission will be launch by the General, any player can ask the permission to do a flight but the General can decline, that can avoid to see player who will crash just during a free flight and loose force in the base, any general and commandant can in real time assign waypoint for mission for ground and air units, ground units will be AI except for JTAC with combined arms who can be AI or player, and option for launch AI flight or wait for player...

Actual virtual squadron can really find big advantage with their own forum for planed attack and give more virtual squadron cooperation.

If any coalition control every airbase and strategic point of the map, he have win and another scenario can begin.

Every action that player will do can really change a lot of things and every flight not will be useless but will be really important.

 

This idea can give us a new incredible experience and show us the real potential of DCS by really exploiting DCS, Combined Arms, and FC3 possibility !

 

Ask me for more details or idea about that.

I really do like it.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one extremely excited about ground commander coming back.

 

If we can actually get large numbers of people to cooperate, it could provide a revolution in gameplay. Open-ended, completely unscripted scenarios. Personally, I can't wait to take over control of the red side. It will be a lot of fun being an intelligence enemy force commander, and trying to fool all the A-10s and Ka-50s with my ground movements and SAM placements, and trying to inflict maximum casualties on blue (and NO, I'm not planning on putting SAMs inside trees).

 

Furthermore, if we are not relying so much on mission editor triggers and AI ground unit control so much anymore, then it will actually become a fairly simple matter to create a "Save Game" mod (probably integrated into Slmod). There's lots of issues with saving a mission in progress and restoring it later, but many of the issues go away when the AI are no longer in control of ground units, and when triggers are less important. A big remaining issue is restoring AI aircraft exactly as they should be. Probably just have to restore them with full weapons and fuel, or try to do some guesswork/creation of custom loadouts for them on the fly (which would not be fun AND would be very, very time consuming to program).

 

Anyway, I mention it because, even if DCS is or becomes fairly unstable and CTDs, the pain of the CTD is greatly reduced if you have a recent, "restore" point. A massive, four hour long, combined ops mission would have a good chance of CTDing, at least if current CTD probabilities are continued.

@ Speed

In fact this idea its really more realistic and will give more immersion than actual mission who are short and who don't permit a lot of things its why i wonder see that.

If ED do it the simulator will become really attractive and that will be the first step to a new Dynamic Campaign system, and my idea its exactly how war happen in a country finally, that can give more realism, i hope ED will understand and want that, actually a lot of people want several thing but that not change a lot of things finally, its only ED who can decide finally...

 

And don't forget that it will be hard and not easy and fast to become commander and don't forget too that like in real SAM can be vulnerable to ground force, artillery or cruise missile, or (and its the best example of the possibility of my idea) imagine we see C130 dropping fast ground vehicle back to the base and the fast vehicle (or any other spy mission) will transmit SAM site location, formation of A10C or KA-50 (or SEAD with the next aircraft) flying low and just at the last moment firing bomb using TOSS Bombing with CBU 97 and kill your SAM site, but you can avoid it with an AWACS for watch low flying aircraft but it will be a priority target for enemy forces, same thing if you don't use aircraft with ground radar enemy can try to kill your AWACS with mobile SAM or simply destroy your SAM using tank formation, its why you must assign player to patrol fly but you will not be protected against coordinated strike by several enemy base, and don't forget that you will not have unlimited SAM, you will need to wait that your country send you new force or steal it...etc etc incredible possibility choice, its what i feel.

 

About save game, for multiplayer that don't will be necessary, mainly if that using a dedicated server like ED planing to do, we just will need to same player data, just a logbook, and for the single player version yes we will need game saving, for multiplayer for any CTD or disconnection an AI can simply take the control of the player plane and go to landing to the assigned airport.

But i'm sure saving SIM state its not hard, replay do more complicated, and finally when we open new mission file its exactly like if we loading save game.

What happen if after you fly you save the replay and when you want to continue your mission you play the replay file, you wait before the end and you use the function for take control ?

You will simply have a restore point without CTD (if we forget that sometime the replay are totally inaccurate)

Finally ED can use new replay system, more accurate, (cause actually we see in replay aircraft who are killed and who are not in the original mission, or for me my aircraft who finish on the grass by out the taxiway and before take off and finally never will take off)

A new replay system who act like Tacview where the aircraft are forced to follow an exactly position and where damage/destroy are only possible by replay track data and not due to AI who are supposed to act always exactly same (cause sometime their act different).

Add to that the rewind option (a lot of people will be happy with this option for Replay) and an option for simply :

Load the end of the replay with player control (called: Load last state).

That better than any save game and restore point cause we can use it like save game/restore point but exactly when we want (like choose 12mn 05s in a mission of 32mn 45s) and obtain more accurate replay with better possibility for video maker or people who want to analyst their flight (cause actually if we miss the thing that we want to see we are forced to restart the replay)

 

ED just have to create a better replay track like Tacview or for better example like what we see in CMR Dirt 2/3, or like in Falcon 4

If the replay are saved into a new file every minutes (who will be compiled into a single at the next start) or in continue by adding data in the track file, that will simply avoid any game state loose by CTD.

Everyone will have benefice, people who want save game, people who want restore point, people who are video maker, people who want to analyse their flight and people like me who suffer to inaccurate replay track, perfect for save any Dynamic Campaign or my Dynamic Battlefield idea !

Edited March 11, 2012 by Demongornot

I too vote for a dynamic campagin...

 

but i have done some research on Falcon BMS/Falcon 4.0 with it's DC and i have to say that it's far from easy to make a true realtime DC.

 

It's not only so simple to have side A go against B.

 

The hardest would be to make all those flightplans, logical movement of units in relation to everything else, mission planning and unit coordination.

 

And if you have limited radar ranges you'll also have to make logical patrol routes and issue strike forces upon enemy detection.

 

You'd have to priorize targets depending on what is the highest threat.

 

You'd also have some sort of unit/troop supply.

 

And i'm very sure that's only a fraction of stuff what needs to be done. All in all this isn't something that is done in short time. Even if ED plans to make a full realtime DC it would take very much time to make.

 

If ED can pull it off it sure would be a dream come true.

@EaglePryde

 

Yes i know but for the moment the only thing we can do its unrealistic mission, that will take long time for ED to write it but its important, its supposed to be a simulator and in real life the war on a battlefield happen like i have describe my idea of dynamic battlefield who have for big difference to be possible for single player and multiplayer too.

 

And for do it in real time the solution are simple for power needed.

DCS use only 2 CPU core (one for the sim itself and another for the sound engine), a majority of people use more than 2 core's CPU if the IA have a dedicated CPU core that will permit to write the DC regardless the power optimization (in the begin, that can be done after) and that can finally correct the actual stupid horrible and useless AI who make only stupid thing, never work, and never ask close to the reality.

 

The problem with any aircraft simulator its that the creator always think that when something are useless that ca be removed, and finally that make a sim who are ultra realistic for aircraft but that's all, nothing else are realistic...

AI are stupid and bad and don't have any human comportment, and that can be scripted...

The simple fact to "humanize" the AI can finally in same time correct a lot of problems and make better AI, like soldier under fire don't wait to die without moving, or aircraft make ground strike with long and quiet turn during a wartime...

Like i have say here http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=81295

 

Its like : everyone told me that "photorealistic" texture are bad cause its unrealistic due to fact that its taken from a satellite regardless the weather when its done, that true, but first, a texture can be corrected, and more important, compare any "photorealistic" texture from FSX or Aerofly FS or any other with texture in DCS who actually look bad, unrealistic and everytime i look the ground i ask to myself : what this color its supposed to represented, if only actual texture can be correct, well yes then, "photorealistic" texture are uesless, but in actual sim that can finally be one of the best graphic change that we can't see, about graphic, are you see how the sun are unrealistic ? poor little yellow ball, we don't have any reflection, the aircraft 3D model and texture are nice, but it look plastic and without reflection and better and more realistic light ambiance and color, that will always look plastic. Look that :

"i talk only about reflection effect on the texture, nothing else, that look hyper realistic, like true metal in real life and not plastic.

If we ask to ED to do it them will say that its useless, and always the same people will say that its not realistic or any other lie like that like if actually its realistic...

Best example here :

Perfect photorealistic scenery (and its funny to see people who still saying that its not realistic, like if DCS are better than that...

I have always say that : advanced 3D (for ground) CLOSE (not the same) rending that what we have in Arma 2 or Arma 3 (who have a giant map compare to Arma 2) for ONLY 5 Km (Arma rending that at 10 Km with a lot of thing useless for aircraft simulator "like interior of house" and who can be deleted and save a lot of power) and over 5Km ONLY texture on basic ground geometry, texture study only for be show over 5Km, low resolution i want mean, and the texture who just show 3D object drawn on it and if its perfectly synchronized with the place of the 3D object what will be the result ? Perfect graphic rending like Arma for close object and hyper realistic texture for more.

Why ? cause over 5km we DON'T see the difference against 3D and 2D, in real life and in a video game, only big building, antenna and big/high thing need to be show, my idea are SIMPLE and TOTALLY POSSIBLE and can give perfect graphic rending for finally less performance compare to actual...

Arma can show more than 100 units without take more performance than DCS with only 4 A10C on the parking...

 

And perfect reflection on the aircraft who make the texture look like real life aircraft, and not plastic, and if we disabled the reflection that will look simply plastic, DCS calculate shadows but don't calculate reflection...Reflection are almost more important than shadows...

Its like why the wingtip vortex are modeled and another effect that we ask more and who are more visual impact are not modeled, the wing vapor ?

Yes of course its nice http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:F-15_wingtip_vortices.jpg but in internal view the wing condensation are really more visible...

 

Its a lot of little details confederate like useless one after one that can finally transform a nice "the best" possible simulator into a banal simulator full of bug, error, bad AI and unrealistic/ugly graphic.

And the worst, ED don't make it and don't give us any SDK for do it ourself...

Like don't create ground crew (and if only one day we get to have one from ED it will take incredible performance for show bad animation) what will happen if the next aircraft is an Hornet with carrier OPS ? Cause in a carrier we need to have ground crew for placing the aircraft correctly on the catapult, the solution will be to use external view...

And the worst thing about carrier its not that in DCS we have a completely empty carrier where the aircraft spawn, the worst thing its that the nice AI carrier full of aircraft with internal bridge visible and several animation (this carrier http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRdcQwpGq1U ) take less performance than empty DCS's carrier...

And after people laugh to me when i say that DCS are not optimized and can be better... Same thing with X plane http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPQxWLo5PZU

Mainly in the middle of the sea, in the middle of nowhere where the only thing that we have to calculate are the sea and a single ugly carrier without any details who take more performance than FSX with carrier full of aircraft and who navigate in the border of a big city (who take a lot of performance in FSX)...

The proof that like everytime in simulator, the creator are finally missed everything about the pilot (just maybe G effect on the view and hypoxia and nothing more) pilot don't feel heat or cold, internal temperature are not important, same for pressure and a lot of thing that i will don't talk about cause i will see incredible long list of people who will say that its impossible (regardless the fact that other game/simulator already do it without need a NASA's CPU) or that its useless...

But the problem are : we don't embody a pilot, we embody the aircraft with a camera on the seat...

 

And regardless the fact that the sim are already not (or badly) optimized, it is not optimized for internal view, in fact a true simulator must be optimized for internal view ONLY, external view must be optional and don't need to be optimized...

3D model of aircraft are so nice, the problem its that more than 3 in the field of view and the simulator take more power than what a supercomputer can give...

Why ? cause 3D morel are extremely advanced (3D model that we can only see details when we using external view) and for balance environment are ugly.

 

Its like the fact that the aerodynamic force CREATED by the aircraft are totally missed, no vortex, no turbulence, like if its not important, my favorite non-fighter military aircraft, the XB-70 have know a crash cause an aircraft who flying close to him was sucked by the vortex and do a collision...

Its important but its considerate like not important by created, then that not done...

And maybe people will say that its impossible to simulate it (and that will just make me laugh) but what about glider simulator (like "Condor The Competition Soaring Simulator") who perfectly simulate it then ?

 

Its like collisionable tree, fr Flaming Cliff its not important, for A10C same, but its stupid for Black Shark to not including that, the Black Shark take advantage of the terrain MAINLY building and tree, yes ok the problem will be what happen for people with little configuration ? its simple, collision must be not created by tree itself but by forest/tree area, what happen in any other game ? the tree are simply reduced in details/complexity, same for DCS, adding better tree than actual and baddest with 4 options: Distance of view (like actual), tree shadow (like actually too), tree density (the collisionable forest area still the same but the number of tree can be reduced in this area) and tree complexity (for change against actual to 2D tree (for little PC configuration) and better (for people who have nice computer) and the best, an option : improved single tree (like in the mods of GrandSurf, tree around airbase and other single tree with nice detailed 3D model...

 

Etc etc etc, the list of thing who MUST be change and who are simply conscious forget are impressive...

 

I hope the list of things i have write here will one day help for change things, ED must change it and give us better SIM cause actually its more a procedure simulator than a real life simulator with a long list of bugs and missing things...And when anyone know that we say the truth people who over-defending ED work regardless if its true or not will ask us if we prefer "eyecandy" (like if the GIANT list of thing who must be change are not important and like if that only include visual) or patch for bug correction ?

Finally i prefer eyecandy and the things that we have missed cause every patch add new bug and don't correct precedent...Like multiplayer who are the most important thing to fix, always disconnected, always bug and packet lost who simply make aircraft act like an UFO by crossing 3 time the map in 2 seconds and who are impossible to flying if formation with if we don't want to be killed by virtual collision who never happen...

 

If ED can take time for think about my dynamic battlefield idea, we just already get it and we can have just after that the Dynamics Campaign when the AI will be completely rewrite...

 

My dynamic battlefield idea are simplest than the dynamic campaign cause almost only PLAYER control the simulator and the battlefield, its really more easy to create than the version only controlled by AI who generate itself their own flight plan, in my idea the player who are commander and the player who embody flight commanding center personal will guide pilot and create flight plan, with VOIP directly based on the frequency (military radio voice effect) and working radio encrypting, that can become the most realistic simulator ever, cause what happen on the battlefield are really important, and actually, the single mission without any possibility to continue, in single AND in multiplayer its far to be realistic...

I have already see people who don't buy this game cause dynamic campaign are missing, with my idea, its more attractive than a dynamic campaign cause its exactly the same thing, we really life a true war or conflict with real consequence from our actions.

Its can be created really fast compare to a dynamic campaign cause its just adding possibility, after the AI itself don't will change, just keep acting like before, the motor will be all player who will finally perform complex task like decide of the strategy, decide of the flight plan, planing an attack, manage pilot, airbase, secondary base/sub-base and outpost, patrol and preventive actions and any other things...

And in ca be really great and smart to create that before create dynamic campaign, the experience of the player, the actions and everything can finally be observed, analysed and using for create the dynamic campaign.

 

My idea not will be easy and fast to be created, i know, but anyways for create true dynamic campaign all this possibility must be write and compare to true dynamic campaign it will be simply easy and fast to write, and before create dynamic campaign AI must be radically change and improved...

Imagine for the next DCS aircraft if only we can have for multiplayer my dynamic battlefield idea AND my list of thing who must be change that i have write before...

That simply can become the best simulator ever and attract a lot of people.

 

Imagine the unlimited possibility if first, ED introduce dual seat with shared cockpit and give us SDK...

Imagine with my dynamic battlefield idea when people will begin to create advanced and realistic ground vehicle, like tank, AAA, SAM and other, or when people will begin to create AWACS with one player as pilot, another as copilot, and other as watcher, same for Tanker with pilot, copilot and boomer, possibility to embody control tower, with VOIP that just will be perfect, or possibility to help pilot in the aerial command center of my dynamic battlefield idea...THAT is my dream, and i know fan can't create AWACS really advanced like actual DCS aircraft, but maybe better than Flaming Cliff's aircraft, and its will be better to have semi realistic AWACS or TANKER than nothing...

 

Sorry for the looooong post...

But i think its important to say all this things...

Edited March 13, 2012 by Demongornot