DCS Features Wish List

[aaron886]

A whole new particle system would really be in order. It would be a fantastic update... not easy, but much needed. With some scripting, and the ability to add particle generators to missions/aircraft, I think it would "keep on giving" once the initial work was done.

[Moa]

> That's before we start on logistics modelling supply line management etc.

 

A very simple system is all that is needed in the first version. This is where you cut corners to get something out.

 

> Or - make it easy for you clever guys out there to create one.

 

There has been some improvement in FC2, as well as some regression. Fortunately ED are very receptive to suggestions. I'm putting something together for public comment in the hope we can send a coherent and comprehensive list of suggestions for ED to consider.

 

> Dynamic Campaigns are massively under rated. Its the only thing lacking in my opinion.

 

Dynamic Campaign and the ability to add new cockpits (allowing true multi-role) I'd say are the biggest things at the moment. These are clearly non-trivial to do.

[EtherealN]

There has been some improvement in FC2, as well as some regression. Fortunately ED are very receptive to suggestions. I'm putting something together for public comment in the hope we can send a coherent and comprehensive list of suggestions for ED to consider.

 

Rest assured that ED are interested in the ability to include or at least facilitate the creation of something like this somewhere down the line. (No guarantees on either "when" or "if" - I have nothing but educated guesses there. I test stuff, I don't design them. :P ) I've done some thinking about it myself but decided that my coding skills aren't good enough. But I'd definitely be interested in looking at a list of suggestions.

 

The closest I myself got as a concept was an application with a library that would generate miz files on the fly, based on reading the track file generated while flying and comparing with a database. But my own sketch for it required way too much manual work to be practical even outside of the actual programming. I have absolutely no doubt that you'd be able to figure out something better since it's not hard to be a better programmer than I am. Feel free to PM your stuff to me if you want to share. :)

 

EDIT

That said, I do think that dynamic campaigns are slightly overrated. They're nice to have, but a manually designed campaign is way better than a poorly implemented DC engine. But if anyone can do it well, it's the boys in Moscow. :)

Edited August 16, 2010 by EtherealN

[bumfire]

What I would like is, not a full blown DCS - eject - ARMA situation, but, a situation where if you eject, you have to evade the enemy forces just long enough til a scripted CSAR package can get to you.

 

All scripted, as all you do is run after you have ejected, maybe also push a button to pop smoke or let a beacon start transmitting so that the scripted CSAR package can get a more accurate fix on you.

 

Once the CSAR helo is above you, say within a 500m diameter circle or so, then you are automatically hoisted above and respawn at the airfield, or you get the respawn/abort/quit menu options.

 

Make it so the CSAR helo wont come closer than 1 mile to any enemy position/vehicle, so if you eject, you would have to run 1 mile away from the nearest enemy position and then wait X minutes for csar to get your rough location, then you pop smoke or transmit a locator beacon and the helo will get a proper fix and pick you up.

 

Also have it loaded up with flares, chaff and onboard jammers.

 

It could be done quite easily I think, but there is alot more things that need to be done long before something like this.

[WindWpn]

Well, another option could be similar to Falcon. Simply have a variable which dictates whether you are rescued or MIA at the mission debrief. Perhaps a ratio is used based upon location of ejection relative to the home airbase and/or whether you were able to make a SAR request prior to bailout. Your RS vs MIA could then also tie into any campaign progress/logbook record.

[rweaves6]

> That's before we start on logistics modelling supply line management etc.

 

A very simple system is all that is needed in the first version. This is where you cut corners to get something out.

 

> Or - make it easy for you clever guys out there to create one.

 

There has been some improvement in FC2, as well as some regression. Fortunately ED are very receptive to suggestions. I'm putting something together for public comment in the hope we can send a coherent and comprehensive list of suggestions for ED to consider.

 

> Dynamic Campaigns are massively under rated. Its the only thing lacking in my opinion.

 

Dynamic Campaign and the ability to add new cockpits (allowing true multi-role) I'd say are the biggest things at the moment. These are clearly non-trivial to do.

 

These guys understand the desire for a dynamic campaign. Falcon, BOB, and Enemy Engaged are the only three that I can think of. There's a reason why the other 100 (guess?) combat flight sims didn't have one. A dynamic campaign is its own beast altogether and I doubt that developing one doesn't coincide with ED's commercial development interests.

 

I hope I've angered them for making assumptions while having no knowledge of them and that they create a dynamic campaign just to make me look bad:D

[Nate--IRL--]

These guys understand the desire for a dynamic campaign. Falcon, BOB, and Enemy Engaged are the only three that I can think of. :D

 

I think we should get some terminology correct before we continue, there are different types of Dynamic campaign. The campaigns you have outlined are Realtime Campaigns (IIRC). IL2's Dgen is a Non-Realtime campaign. In my opinion it will be a Non-Realtime campaign that will be the most likely candidate for DCS.

 

Given the proper input and output capabilities from the Sim we may even see a 3rd party Dgen like campaign first. IIRC Dgen was a 3rd party campaign engine before being included with IL2.

 

Nate

[MBot]

That said, I do think that dynamic campaigns are slightly overrated. They're nice to have, but a manually designed campaign is way better than a poorly implemented DC engine.

 

But then a well implemented DC engine is even better than a manually designed campaign :)

 

 

 

I came to the conclusion, that an entry DC would best be limited in scope to a pure air campaign, completely ignoring any ground war. Obviously this wouldn't work for helicopter or CAS aircraft, but would involve SEAD, strikers and fighters. The relative static nature of an Intergrated Air Defense Network, command structures, industry and logistic targets, would be a lot simpler to implement initally. War on the ground on the strategic and tactical level is complex enough to justify complete simulations on it's own. Just think about the AI needed to move around divisions on the grand map in a way that makes sense in a strategic context, or move tank platoons through the landscape with regards to the tactical situation and terrain. It makes my head spin when doing it by hand in the ME!

 

Perhaps some day there will be a all out war DC. But I am convinced that the first step in that direction must involve forgetting about the ground war. That would put a well implemented dynamic campaign engine a lot closer into reach. And don't get my wrong, I realy want to have a DC. I consider all my mission building to be a interim solution for the DC :)

[rweaves6]

I think we should get some terminology correct before we continue, there are different types of Dynamic campaign. The campaigns you have outlined are Realtime Campaigns (IIRC). IL2's Dgen is a Non-Realtime campaign. In my opinion it will be a Non-Realtime campaign that will be the most likely candidate for DCS.

 

Given the proper input and output capabilities from the Sim we may even see a 3rd party Dgen like campaign first. IIRC Dgen was a 3rd party campaign engine before being included with IL2.

 

Nate

 

Fair enough, all I was saying is that the only campaigns that have any "dynamic" flavour that I've stumbled across over the years (and I believe I've flown every sim produced), were EECH, Rowen's Battle of Britain, and Falcon4.

They are all different in their own right, you could argue that Falcon is the only true dynamic campaign. The other two sure felt dynamic.

[Pyroflash]

Seems like too much walking and not enough flying. Also, what happens if there are SAMs? do you get stuck having to walk 20 miles?

 

Also, if I died and had to restart the campaign, it would make me angry.

[element1108]

Seems like too much walking and not enough flying. Also, what happens if there are SAMs? do you get stuck having to walk 20 miles?

 

Also, if I died and had to restart the campaign, it would make me angry.

 

That reminds me of my xwing days....if I died in a mission and got the "captured" instead of "rescued" cutscene my pilot would be "MIA" and the rebel soldier would repeat "you must register" over and over until I made a new pilot and had to start the campaign over again. Fixed with a simple backup to 1.44 floppy disk, but annoying none the less ;).

[Deigs]

Great... a SUV drives up to you, with guys shooting AK47's and then you get gunbutted in the head, tortured for 4 weeks by guys wanting to know what they could easily obtain from a Janes manual or the internet, and then released.

 

Sounds awesome.

 

I'd just press the re-fly button.

[shu77]

Yeah I'm pretty sure that ejecting with your Baretta or even a P-90 against a battalion of T-72's is going to be as much fun as BC2 would have you believe.

 

That said it would be pretty cool to do CAS for SAR and have the helo actually able to winch out a downed pilot/land and retrieve etc. That would be an interesting mission. Perhaps even with DCS Apache be able to land and have them carabena onto the wings as per the introduction in Apache Dawn. :)

[Mr_Burns]

I like the ideo of SAR mod.

 

On the 'game' level campaign in Blackshark, you have to escort the SAR helo to pick up a pilot so its almost there.

 

Not sure about running around though, nice idea but we are a few years away from the digital online battlefield incorporating ARMA and DCS but it will get there.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Mr_Burns

[Mr_Burns]

Remember Eurofighter Typhoon (not the Windows one but the one where you were in Iceland?!)

 

That had a nice Pilot Roster system where you had to assign pilots to perform different missions and you could either fly them or let the computer predict the outcome. Didnt some of those pilots go MIA until you reclaimed the square they were captured? Mix that with the SAR mission, just hope someone elects to rescue you or else you will be there forever!

 

 

I remember shooting down (or sinking) the Ecranoplan - maybe DCS could sim that!

Edited August 18, 2010 by Mr_Burns

[DarkStar]

good memories from EF Typhoon! And ejecting over the Atlantic drastically reduced the survival chances. I really enjoyed the RPG element in that game.

[wildone_106]

Ahh famous last words..

 

'It could be done quite easily I think, but there is alot more things that need to be done long before something like this.'

[nats]

Fair enough, all I was saying is that the only campaigns that have any "dynamic" flavour that I've stumbled across over the years (and I believe I've flown every sim produced), were EECH, Rowen's Battle of Britain, and Falcon4.

They are all different in their own right, you could argue that Falcon is the only true dynamic campaign. The other two sure felt dynamic.

 

No I would include Gunship 2000, Tornado/Hind, EF2000, TAW, Falcon 4 and EECH as having reasonable semi dynamic campaigns that enable reasonable unrepetitive gameplay.

 

I wont buy any sim that doesnt have at least a semi-dynamic campaign I hate canned missions. This is why I didnt buy LOMAC or any of its offspring. I like to fly a mission against a target and have another generated to suit the unfolding war and have previous targets destroyed. I dont expect campaings to be ultra complex and have supply effects etc as you would in a wargame - this is not what I am after. I just want to be able to replay campaigns several times or alterative campaigns without repetition.

 

Tornado was a quite good example - it came with several campaigns, you had a few varied missions affected by the previous one in a semi dynamic manner and you had free choice over how you configured the attack. This to me is fine for a flight sim. I dont expect the full on complexity of Falcon 4.

 

In EF2000 you had a variety of missions and targets to pick from and a variety of planes waiting for you although they were obviously always waiting at the last waypoint before the target. That was a bit lame when I figured that one out. To me its all about suspension of disbelief. Once you figure out a game is coded a certain way that breaks the game for me.

 

Of course I loved TFX which was canned missions but it wasnt too important that the missions were repetitive as they was quite a few of them and three planes to fly. But I wouldnt buy a sim like that again unless it enabled free choice over mission planning, target etc etc. Thats what I expect these days.

 

So I probably wont be buying A10 or any other ED sim until they manage to get an interesting backdrop to the flying - Microprose always managed it and things have moved on a lot since then. In Gunship 2000 you had a variety of helicopters to fly, you could select wingmen etc and you had a group of pilots to award medals to etc. That was really fun stuff. You never see that anymore these days. If they could manage it then, software houses these days could certainly manage it if they had a will. But these days its all about an 'accurate flying experience and realism' etc etc. BOOOORING! Lets get some fun sims out there again.

 

This is what I want to see before I buy - semi dynamic campaign enabling shoice of targets, choice of payload, group of pilots to choose from, medals to award, a few base screens to watch whilst you are waiting for the mission, a choice of wingmen and control of their setups, damaged targets stay damaged for a long time and maybe affect the war somehow (in a minimal way possibly), in flight refuelling, a mixture of Airtoair and Mudmoving missions. See no need for complex flight simulations - its all the rest that makes for a great game.

 

Why cant developers see this????

Edited August 20, 2010 by nats

[Steel Jaw]

DCs rock period.

[Haukka81]

No I would include Gunship 2000, Tornado/Hind, EF2000, TAW, Falcon 4 and EECH as having reasonable semi dynamic campaigns that enable reasonable unrepetitive gameplay.

 

I wont buy any sim that doesnt have at least a semi-dynamic campaign I hate canned missions. This is why I didnt buy LOMAC or any of its offspring. I like to fly a mission against a target and have another generated to suit the unfolding war and have previous targets destroyed. I dont expect campaings to be ultra complex and have supply effects etc as you would in a wargame - this is not what I am after. I just want to be able to replay campaigns several times or alterative campaigns without repetition.

 

Tornado was a quite good example - it came with several campaigns, you had a few varied missions affected by the previous one in a semi dynamic manner and you had free choice over how you configured the attack. This to me is fine for a flight sim. I dont expect the full on complexity of Falcon 4.

 

In EF2000 you had a variety of missions and targets to pick from and a variety of planes waiting for you although they were obviously always waiting at the last waypoint before the target. That was a bit lame when I figured that one out. To me its all about suspension of disbelief. Once you figure out a game is coded a certain way that breaks the game for me.

 

Of course I loved TFX which was canned missions but it wasnt too important that the missions were repetitive as they was quite a few of them and three planes to fly. But I wouldnt buy a sim like that again unless it enabled free choice over mission planning, target etc etc. Thats what I expect these days.

 

So I probably wont be buying A10 or any other ED sim until they manage to get an interesting backdrop to the flying - Microprose always managed it and things have moved on a lot since then. In Gunship 2000 you had a variety of helicopters to fly, you could select wingmen etc and you had a group of pilots to award medals to etc. That was really fun stuff. You never see that anymore these days. If they could manage it then, software houses these days could certainly manage it if they had a will. But these days its all about an 'accurate flying experience and realism' etc etc. BOOOORING! Lets get some fun sims out there again.

 

This is what I want to see before I buy - semi dynamic campaign enabling shoice of targets, choice of payload, group of pilots to choose from, medals to award, a few base screens to watch whilst you are waiting for the mission, a choice of wingmen and control of their setups, damaged targets stay damaged for a long time and maybe affect the war somehow (in a minimal way possibly), in flight refuelling, a mixture of Airtoair and Mudmoving missions. See no need for complex flight simulations - its all the rest that makes for a great game.

 

Why cant developers see this????

 

 

+1

 

 

-haukka81:thumbup:

[Sticky]

Nats it sounds to me like you want a good game with a good enough DC. I myself want a good flight simulator with a good enough DC. Maybe you will have better luck getting your wish with a company who makes games instead of flight simulators? ;)

[sobek]

Why cant developers see this????

 

Well, what you seem to have overlooked is that work towards a dynamic mission system is ongoing, in increments, because realisation of a campaign system all at once would mean a very long financial dry spell for ED. They are a small studio, so this is probably not something that they are willing to do. What they can do though is work with the module system and generate returns while at the same time realising previously undone features and graphic updates one at a time. The first step is the random mission generator that is in the works for DCSW.

 

All the large flight sim studios of the early to mid nineties have died out, in part due to their humonguous development times between releases. Is it so hard to accept that ED do not want to go down that road?

[EtherealN]

But these days its all about an 'accurate flying experience and realism' etc etc. BOOOORING! Lets get some fun sims out there again.

 

The "fun sims" companies died. There is a reason why they died. ;)

 

Also, "accurate flying experience and realism" is what DCS is about. It's the trademark, and it is what has allowed it to be successful. It doesn't have to be your personal cup of tea, but that's the market it is aiming for.

 

Although I have to say it is the first time I've seen a simulator person say that "accurate flying experience and realism" is "boring". Personally speaking, the only thing more thrilling aviation-wise than DCS simulators is when I'm out there for real and planning a final with severe crosswind. (Correcting a severe spin is easier than that as long as you have the altitude.) Sitting there and needing a 45 degree offset at the start of your final is a serious adrenaline pumper, and a simulator that cannot do this accurately would be pointless to me. There is something to be said for flight simulation even within a combat-centered game, because even when you have something to shoot at there is only one thing that you'll be doing all the time - flying.

[rweaves6]

No I would include Gunship 2000, Tornado/Hind, EF2000, TAW, Falcon 4 and EECH as having reasonable semi dynamic campaigns that enable reasonable unrepetitive gameplay.

 

I wont buy any sim that doesnt have at least a semi-dynamic campaign I hate canned missions. This is why I didnt buy LOMAC or any of its offspring. I like to fly a mission against a target and have another generated to suit the unfolding war and have previous targets destroyed. I dont expect campaings to be ultra complex and have supply effects etc as you would in a wargame - this is not what I am after. I just want to be able to replay campaigns several times or alterative campaigns without repetition.

 

Tornado was a quite good example - it came with several campaigns, you had a few varied missions affected by the previous one in a semi dynamic manner and you had free choice over how you configured the attack. This to me is fine for a flight sim. I dont expect the full on complexity of Falcon 4.

 

In EF2000 you had a variety of missions and targets to pick from and a variety of planes waiting for you although they were obviously always waiting at the last waypoint before the target. That was a bit lame when I figured that one out. To me its all about suspension of disbelief. Once you figure out a game is coded a certain way that breaks the game for me.

 

Of course I loved TFX which was canned missions but it wasnt too important that the missions were repetitive as they was quite a few of them and three planes to fly. But I wouldnt buy a sim like that again unless it enabled free choice over mission planning, target etc etc. Thats what I expect these days.

 

So I probably wont be buying A10 or any other ED sim until they manage to get an interesting backdrop to the flying - Microprose always managed it and things have moved on a lot since then. In Gunship 2000 you had a variety of helicopters to fly, you could select wingmen etc and you had a group of pilots to award medals to etc. That was really fun stuff. You never see that anymore these days. If they could manage it then, software houses these days could certainly manage it if they had a will. But these days its all about an 'accurate flying experience and realism' etc etc. BOOOORING! Lets get some fun sims out there again.

 

This is what I want to see before I buy - semi dynamic campaign enabling shoice of targets, choice of payload, group of pilots to choose from, medals to award, a few base screens to watch whilst you are waiting for the mission, a choice of wingmen and control of their setups, damaged targets stay damaged for a long time and maybe affect the war somehow (in a minimal way possibly), in flight refuelling, a mixture of Airtoair and Mudmoving missions. See no need for complex flight simulations - its all the rest that makes for a great game.

 

Why cant developers see this????

 

While I do respect your interests, you'll probably find this community for the most part doesn't share your view.

For me it comes down to;

1. realistic flight model

2. realistic flight model

3. realistic cockpit/avionics/weapons modes...etc

4. because I can't fly online, a somewhat dynamic campaign would be nice. Fully dynamic would be ideal of course.

5. terrain scenery/graphics

I would buy any flight combat sim if it had the first three, #4 just determines it's shelf life with me. That's why F4 made it a dozen years with me, it's DC.

Just my thoughts. I'm sure there is a large number of people who prefer online therefore the DC may not be as important. It would be interesting to see what % fly online/offline.

 

To Nats, have you tried Hawx or Birds of Prey? I haven't but I think they are more gamey?

[GGTharos]

So, go buy a game. A flight sim is what you make of it.

Wags already mentioned a dynamic mission generator for A-10C - and I see the need for complex flight simulations - as in, I like them, and I find them fun.

 

This is what I want to see before I buy - semi dynamic campaign enabling shoice of targets, choice of payload, group of pilots to choose from, medals to award, a few base screens to watch whilst you are waiting for the mission, a choice of wingmen and control of their setups, damaged targets stay damaged for a long time and maybe affect the war somehow (in a minimal way possibly), in flight refuelling, a mixture of Airtoair and Mudmoving missions. See no need for complex flight simulations - its all the rest that makes for a great game.

 

Why cant developers see this????