About the DCS:BS Campaign System

[Bucic]

Link?

 

Replying to your kind request ;)

http://www.frugalsworld.com/falcon4/kevin.shtml

 

Kevin Klemmick wanted alive! should ED announce.

http://www.mobygames.com/developer/shots/developerId,17954/developerShotId,2231/

 

(I think it's the Kevin Klemmick)

 

I can't rep the guy but certainly I can glorify His name.:thumbup:

 

Don't read the article because it makes people want to try Flacon 4 again :devil_2:

 

Edit: There's also a separate Interview about the Player Bubble as you can see here http://www.frugalsworld.com/falcon4/index.shtml

[159th_Viper]

Replying to your kind request ;)

http://www.frugalsworld.com/falcon4/kevin.shtml

 

Kevin Klemmick wanted alive! should ED announce.

http://www.mobygames.com/developer/shots/developerId,17954/developerShotId,2231/

 

(I think it's the Kevin Klemmick)

 

I can't rep the guy but certainly I can glorify His name.:thumbup:

 

Don't read the article because it makes people want to try Falcon 4 again :devil_2:

 

Edit: There's also a separate Interview about the Player Bubble as you can see here http://www.frugalsworld.com/falcon4/index.shtml

 

Good Read - Ta for sharing :thumbup:

 

Just shows what can be done..........maybe one day.

 

Damn, I'll be glad for a Combat Study SIM with an AFM, Eye-Watering Graphics (Yes - it's all about the Eye-Candy: I don't only fly to get splashed) and a Dynamic Campaign similar or better to Falcons........I hope I'll still be around to savour the moment:D

[leafer]

Product delays really hurt us.

 

And what delayed the product?

That's right...

 

:D

[Floyd]

Just read all - it's not as simply as you want to make believe it is. Drop the idea that the campaign was the major culprit for bankruptcy. Following your simple logic ED must have been broken long ago, as overdue as their products are.

[Bucic]

Just read all - it's not as simply as you want to make believe it is. Drop the idea that the campaign was the major culprit for bankruptcy. Following your simple logic ED must have been broken long ago, as overdue as their products are.

 

Amen.

[leafer]

Huh? I merely pointed out what delayed the release. I remember reading about that way back when I waited for it to be released.

 

Now, my simple logic tells me ED managed to stay in business because, one, I'm almost sure their programmers didn't and still don't get paid the same wages their US counterparts do. Two: Flanker 2, LOMAC and FC were actually fun to fly. Three: The graphics were awesome to look at back then and it didn't really have any show-stopper bugs like Falcon 4 did.

 

Now, did Mr. Louie even acknowledge that Falcon 4 was a mecca for all kinds of nasty bugs even though it was long in the making?

[GGTharos]

You forgot four: Military contracts. Black Shark was delayed due to the A-10C sim development, not 'just 'cause' ... it was a very good reason for a delay. :)

[Floyd]

Well, i was flying F4 multiplayer campaign over a 64 ISDN line back in 2001.

Flanker multiplyer was rotten ugly. We experienced the 'Internal Flanker error'

in 90% of our online missions (dogfight was better). Lomac online was a mess in the beginning,

big warping all over the scenery, flying dogfight was mere impossible. It got better with the

patches and matured with FC - but you still need a better connection than in F4:Allied Force

campaign with same number of pilots.

 

But that is all history now that BS will hit the disk sooner or later, so let's stay on topic. :)

[Groove]

Good point Floyd, lets concentrate on the Black Shark campaign system.

[Bucic]

I played a singleplayer campaign in unpatched Falcon 4.0 and It worked fine. Majority of bugs reported was 'AWACS reporting non existent units" kind of thing - not crashes. So let's not forget about this and "Flanker 2 internal error" and move on.

 

IMO this campaign system for DCS will be a great boost for one of the core elements of the simulation and I would trade it for half of avionics modeling.

 

I hope some mission builders will pop-up with a bunch of tough questions so we can hunt for more juicy details. I can't think of any - I have the Armed Assault editor in mind all the time because of these pieces of information about triggers...

[rogue_blade]

i dont get it but cool anyway

[EvilBivol-1]

Although not "dynamic" in the sense of self-generating missions, our current system nevertheless allows to progress the campaign based on the destruction of 'targets of opportunity', as opposed to primary mission objectives.

 

Given our new missions goals system, trigger system and the ability to define random probability for group activation, such scenarios can be quite practical in our current mission and campaign editors. Furthermore, the new group template function makes it much easier to place a number of similar unit groups in multiple locations on the map. Using group templates, you can create, save, place and edit pre-arranged groups, such as artillery batteries, SAM batteries, convoys, etc. Since they are saved in an outside folder, you can also share the saved file with others.

 

To give you an example, you can place unit groups that may or may not appear in a mission and you can also assign mission goal values to any units on the map, so that even if the primary target is not viable in that particular flight, damaging other units anywhere on the map can still earn mission goal values and progress the player in the campaign. So, "wandering" around the map and destroying 'secondaries' or 'targets of opportunity' can have an effect on mission evaluation and campaign progression.

 

Naturally, all of this has to be designed by the mission/campaign designer. Really, the limitation of what can be achieved is only in the mission/campaign designer. If you want to make simple missions and linear campaigns more in the style of Lock On, you certainly can. If you're interested in a multi-threaded campaign flow with high replayability value, you now have a number of additional tools for that as well, although it will probably take more planning and time to achieve. As DCS continues to be developed, these tools will continue to be expanded as well.

[Bucic]

So, "wandering" around the map and destroying 'secondaries' or 'targets of opportunity' can have an effect on mission evaluation and campaign progression.

 

Uhh, finaly.

 

A question - will player be hold responsible for AI stupidity? I'm not talking here in terms of mission builder approach.

 

Example1:

Mission goal: destroy a SAM site

player's wing task: provide air cover

end situation: SEAD package has been brought down by SAM site they suppose to destroy. Player has fulfilled his task.

 

Example2:

Mission goal: destroy a runway defended by a SAM site

player's wing task: destroy a runway

SEAD wing: destroy SAM site so the player's wing can attack the runway

end situation: SEAD package has been brought down by SAM site they suppose to destroy so player could not possibly approach his target.

 

How exactly will those situation be handled by the campaign "judging system"?

 

This came up when I recalled a situation from Flanker 2.5 where I was on air cover duty and had to fly across half of Crimean Peninsula at 10m altitude to destroy S300 with cannon. Then I destroyed BUK site by landing on the arfield it was placed by shooting from the ground. Similar situations occured during Lock On gameplay. Ridiculous. I was like :ranting: back then.

 

Edit:

2. Will there be triggers for increasing/decreasing probability of certain actions?

3. Will it be possible to create triggers activating other triggers and so on without any strict limit for the number of conjunctions?

4. How will be the fact of player's "death" handled? Same as in Lock On?

5. Will there be any kind of influence on AI in general caused by introducing the new campaign system?

[BBQ]

Bucic,

 

I would venture to say that just because you have tasked your flight, or another flight, to attack a certain target, that that doesn't mean that it will necessarily be successful. After all--if that's the case--why even put the sam site in the mission in the first place?

 

Think about what would happen IRL. If a wild weasel flight failed to take out a particular air defense unit--do you think then, that the strike package turns around and heads for home? They have to deal with the air defenses themselves, and hope for the best. That, to me, is realistic. The AI cannot be perfect--as humans are not perfect--

[Bucic]

I think you missed the whole point.

Bucic,

I would venture to say that just because you have tasked your flight, or another flight, to attack a certain target, that that doesn't mean that it will necessarily be successful.

Did I say all attacks are successful?

After all--if that's the case--why even put the sam site in the mission in the first place?

:huh: ?

Think about what would happen IRL. If a wild weasel flight failed to take out a particular air defense unit--do you think then, that the strike package turns around and heads for home?

With anything harder than KUB SAM site vs anything worse than Su-24 with some kind of stand-off weapons - YES. :)

No offence but I'll wait for someone other to reply. If my queastions are not clear for the rest, I'll try to fix it.

[SwingKid]

Really, the limitation of what can be achieved is only in the mission/campaign designer.

 

What if the mission designer wants a bridge that was destroyed in Mission 1, to remain destroyed in Mission 2?

[BBQ]

end situation: SEAD package has been brought down by SAM site they suppose to destroy. Player has fulfilled his task.

 

end situation: SEAD package has been brought down by SAM site they suppose to destroy so player could not possibly approach his target.

 

How exactly will those situation be handled by the campaign "judging system"?

 

Perhaps I don't understand your question--but my reply was meant to address your "end situations".

 

As far as the "judging system" the mission builder could have put in a goal that the sam sites had to be destroyed for a successful mission. The "judge" can only judge if goals are met, or not--and the mission builder is the one who sets these goals.

 

Just my two cents--anyone please to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

The excitement of the mission, I would think, happens precisely when you state "...so player could not possibly approach his target."

 

Now the flight has the problem of figuring out how to proceed, with the air defenses still up.

[Wags]

Uhh, finaly.

 

A question - will player be hold responsible for AI stupidity? I'm not talking here in terms of mission builder approach.

 

Example1:

Mission goal: destroy a SAM site

player's wing task: provide air cover

end situation: SEAD package has been brought down by SAM site they suppose to destroy. Player has fulfilled his task.

 

Example2:

Mission goal: destroy a runway defended by a SAM site

player's wing task: destroy a runway

SEAD wing: destroy SAM site so the player's wing can attack the runway

end situation: SEAD package has been brought down by SAM site they suppose to destroy so player could not possibly approach his target.

 

How exactly will those situation be handled by the campaign "judging system"?

 

This came up when I recalled a situation from Flanker 2.5 where I was on air cover duty and had to fly across half of Crimean Peninsula at 10m altitude to destroy S300 with cannon. Then I destroyed BUK site by landing on the arfield it was placed by shooting from the ground. Similar situations occured during Lock On gameplay. Ridiculous. I was like :ranting: back then.

 

Edit:

2. Will there be triggers for increasing/decreasing probability of certain actions?

3. Will it be possible to create triggers activating other triggers and so on without any strict limit for the number of conjunctions?

4. How will be the fact of player's "death" handled? Same as in Lock On?

5. Will there be any kind of influence on AI in general caused by introducing the new campaign system?

 

I will try to answer your questions, although the questions were not exactly clear.

 

Dostoevski was accurate in saying that the goal in such a scenario would generally be whether or not the SAM was destroyed as the determining factor of meeting the goal state. However, you could also set up goal states for just the TRR being destroyed, if the player flight reaches a defined location, if the player flight reaches the IP within a defined time window, if the player flight cleared the air space, and if the SEAD flight destroyed the SAM site. As such, setting mission goals can be as basic or detailed as the mission designer wants. It is also up to the mission designer to set up the assets needed to best support the player’s objective. So in the example cited, it would be up to you to provide a SEAD flight capable of first taking out the AD around the airfield before the player flight hits the runway (per your second example). This has nothing to do with goal states.

 

2- Yes, probability factors can range from 0 to 100 in increments of 1. This is generally used in regards to the appearance of a unit/group in the mission. This can be applied to individual units or entire groups of units. For such “activated” groups, you can have them be visible in the world prior to activation or invisible prior to activation. In this way, a clever designer can have units appear to “spawn” in the world.

 

3- Yes. A trigger can set a flag (1 to x) and multiple flags can be set to a single trigger event and rule set. As such, a single trigger being set to true can result in many subsequent actions.

 

4- After the player is KIA, their log book entry simply indicates how many times they have been shot down – the log book entry does not change to KIA and become inactive. So, unlike Lock On, players will not have to save out their pilot log books. Regarding player death and missions, you can easily set a goal state to the player surviving the mission. Up to you.

 

5- The campaign system no, the Mission Editor yes. Particularly with the new acquisition and engagement logic system in the ME, the AI has many changes.

[Bucic]

I will try to answer your questions, although the questions were not exactly clear.

 

Dostoevski was accurate in saying that the goal in such a scenario would generally be whether or not the SAM was destroyed as the determining factor of meeting the goal state. However, you could also set up goal states for just the TRR being destroyed, if the player flight reaches a defined location, if the player flight reaches the IP within a defined time window, if the player flight cleared the air space, and if the SEAD flight destroyed the SAM site. As such, setting mission goals can be as basic or detailed as the mission designer wants. It is also up to the mission designer to set up the assets needed to best support the player’s objective. So in the example cited, it would be up to you to provide a SEAD flight capable of first taking out the AD around the airfield before the player flight hits the runway (per your second example). This has nothing to do with goal states.

 

What I basicaly meant was that in Lock On one would have to repeat the mission untill the goal (however unrealistic it would be) is acomplished even though it was stupid AI who forced player flying Su-25 (basic) to deal with S-300 before he can engage his briefed targets. How it be different in DCS?

 

I expected a few words describing what will happen if a player lands at his homebase facing end mission conditions like those I described. I assume that current mission ends and a player is able to fly another phase of the campaign according to general success ratio of the last mission. Am I right?

 

Tu put it even more simple - >player's mission< (as task) evaluation should not be mission (as campaign mission or phase?) goal dependent. If a player comes back alive with weapon effectivness ratio around 0.99 and during his task front line callapse and country capital is lost, player should still get a medal.

 

As for the other answers to my questions - thank you. Simple and clear. The KIA handling used to be a problem. I'm curious about the AI enhancements list but I guess it's not the right place.

[EvilBivol-1]

Bucic, it all depends on how the goal values are set up to portray a successful mission and progress the campaign. The campaign designer can "move" the campaign based on his choice of objectives, which can be either the player's own objectives or general mission objectives or both.

I'm curious about the AI enhancements list but I guess it's not the right place.

The new detection and engagement model Wags was referring to was described earlier here:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=29282

[Bucic]

Bucic, it all depends on how the goal values are set up to portray a successful mission and progress the campaign. The campaign designer can "move" the campaign based on his choice of objectives, which can be either the player's own objectives or general mission objectives or both.

1. Wouldn't you agree that this

Tu put it even more simple - >player's mission< (as task) evaluation should not be mission (as campaign mission or phase?) goal dependent. If a player comes back alive with weapon effectivness ratio around 0.99 and during his task front line callapse and country capital is lost, player should still get a medal.

reflects real life conditions? Ofcourse in this particular situation one will not get the medal from the president himself ;) but it's not the point.

 

OT: This "Tu" hurts my eyes too! :D

 

2. I was hoping that player:

a) will not be on mission builder's mercy

b) will be rewarded (Logbook and debriefing) for his marvelous actions regardless of campaign progression.

 

As for a) I forgot that most of the things in DCS mission editor will be "handmade" (manual input) by a mission builder. As for b) I cannot accept absence of such feature.

 

The new detection and engagement model Wags was referring to was described earlier here:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=29282

 

I read it before. Thought there will be something more... I wrote before that I would trade half of avionics modeling for the new DCS campaign system. Well, I would trade another quarter of it for all those AI improvements :)

[BBQ]

Bucic:

1. Again, the "Mission" success, as I understand it, is whatever the mission builder wants it to be--and once that is set--there is no other capability in the ME design to create any other successful criteria. E.G. Mission success depends on destroying one tank. The mission creator chose this as the goal for a "successful mission". Now, let's say the map is populated with 100 other tanks on the front line, and you fly the mission and destroy every single one of those 100 tanks, but fail to kill the one tank, that mission creator designated as the goal. Guess what? The mission fails. However, the mission creator could have made the goal to kill every one of those 100 tanks, or 75% of them, or whatever. The point is, it's all about what the mission creator sets as the goals that need to be completed. I imagine these can be as complex or as simple as possible. Wags, et al., correct me if I'm wrong--but there could be multiple goals, that depending on which one's are met, allow you to proceed to a certain mission or phase. So in our example above, let's say there are two goals--one to kill the loner tank, and one goal to kill the 100 tanks. If you kill the loner tank, you proceed to mission "X" and if you kill the 100 tanks, you go to mission "Y". If you kill all the tanks, you go to mission "Z".

 

So, it's all about the goals that are set by the mission creator. I'll predict that some will be unrealisted (have to kill the loner tank only for success), and others more realistic (if you kill 75% of the tanks on the front line, you are successful). This though, is subjective, in terms of how you want to define "success" in a modern day situation. I imagine in some people's minds, simply getting back home in one piece is a success.

[Bucic]

Bucic:

1. Again, the "Mission" success, as I understand it, is whatever the mission builder wants it to be--and once that is set--there is no other capability in the ME design to create any other successful criteria. E.G. Mission success depends on destroying one tank. The mission creator chose this as the goal for a "successful mission". Now, let's say the map is populated with 100 other tanks on the front line, and you fly the mission and destroy every single one of those 100 tanks, but fail to kill the one tank, that mission creator designated as the goal. Guess what? The mission fails. However, the mission creator could have made the goal to kill every one of those 100 tanks, or 75% of them, or whatever. The point is, it's all about what the mission creator sets as the goals that need to be completed. I imagine these can be as complex or as simple as possible. Wags, et al., correct me if I'm wrong--but there could be multiple goals, that depending on which one's are met, allow you to proceed to a certain mission or phase. So in our example above, let's say there are two goals--one to kill the loner tank, and one goal to kill the 100 tanks. If you kill the loner tank, you proceed to mission "X" and if you kill the 100 tanks, you go to mission "Y". If you kill all the tanks, you go to mission "Z".

 

So, it's all about the goals that are set by the mission creator. I'll predict that some will be unrealisted (have to kill the loner tank only for success), and others more realistic (if you kill 75% of the tanks on the front line, you are successful). This though, is subjective, in terms of how you want to define "success" in a modern day situation. I imagine in some people's minds, simply getting back home in one piece is a success.

 

It's covered in my point a).

Point b) still waits for answer.

[Groove]

Tu put it even more simple - >player's mission< (as task) evaluation should not be mission (as campaign mission or phase?) goal dependent.

 

What you are looking for - some kind of "coolness" meter ? Let me give you an example: On carriers, every landing is judged by a scoring system. So when a pilot hits the 3rd wire he will get the most points.

 

Am i correct that what you want for evaluation is the following, speaking like a F/A-18 pilot: "Hey, i missed the the wire on the first approach and hooked up with the first wire on the second approach. But i had a very stylish landing pattern. So please, give me a high rating even i failed."

 

What people are trying to say is that its full dependable on the mission makers set of goals if you fail or success in the particular mission. How should the game judge your performance ? Flying fast and low = bonus points, plus shooting down two fighters: multi! Sounds like a arcade game to me.

[Bucic]

First of all I would like to ask for indulgence regarding my posts which may sound "agressive" to someone. It's rather a language matter. I'll work on it.

 

What you are looking for - some kind of "coolness" meter ? Let me give you an example: On carriers, every landing is judged by a scoring system. So when a pilot hits the 3rd wire he will get the most points.

 

Am i correct that what you want for evaluation is the following, speaking like a F/A-18 pilot: "Hey, i missed the the wire on the first approach and hooked up with the first wire on the second approach. But i had a very stylish landing pattern. So please, give me a high rating even i failed."

 

What people are trying to say is that its full dependable on the mission makers set of goals if you fail or success in the particular mission. How should the game judge your performance ? Flying fast and low = bonus points, plus shooting down two fighters: multi! Sounds like a arcade game to me.

 

God forbid! :D

I thought I made it clear but let me put it this way - in real life pilot is evaluated for his task not for war campaign progress. Anyone who want to reply to this post - first please say if you agree with this and then say if DCS evaluation system reflects this. What might make this question more precise is - does DCS evaluation system will reward pilot as in real life regardless of what mission builder has created?