Black Shark interview at Rock, Paper, Shotgun!

[EvilBivol-1]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/01/18/matt-wagner-on-black-shark/

[SimFreak]

CIA....

 

hmm.....

[159th_Viper]

CIA....

 

hmm.....

 

Where do you think the recurring Fingerprint-smudges on your monitor comes from.......:music_whistling:

 

 

 

Back on Topic:

 

 

 

"...as steal its soul..."

 

Never a truer Word written!

[ericinexile]

"...Additionally, we need to be able to create detailed and realistic AI Forward Air Controller interactions with the player and we want to be able to script realistic battle-flow..."

 

I'm still waiting for that one. Great interview.

[H-street]

What is interesting is that we often hear desires for other elements like dynamic campaigns and radio communications that are very far from reality.

 

I guess we know how they feel about dynamic campaigns...

[dali]

btw, I get BAT/DELSys trojan warnining when going to that link.

[d0ppler]

I guess we know how they feel about dynamic campaigns...

 

yeah, that was a depressing read. Read the comments as well. Many complains about the lack of a dynamic campaign.

[MBot]

I think that is a misunderstanding. I guess he means that lots of people have unrealistic expectations/perceptions about dynamic campaigns or radio comms, not that they are unrealistic.

 

 

Matt also says in the interview:

 

nor are we at the point we can create such a dynamic campaign system… yet

[Weta43]

I don't think it's a misunderstanding - There is a pole of thought that holds that well (human) crafted missions allow a more realistic portrayal of actual battles and correct tactical use of aircraft than those generated by a DC - that a DC generates losts of slightly different missions - but not particularly realistic ones.

[uhoh7]

Alot of us have spent many hours with the F4 DC, and at first the campaign in BS seems awful linear--you see saw back and forth through similar missions--well similar battlefields---unless you are very good.

 

But the ME has come forward quite a bit obviously, and once you realize the parameters the current setup is pretty fun.

 

It's all dependant on the mission designer---the potential is there for some spectacular campaigns.

 

While at first put off by the GOC, I now enjoy the missions (I live longer ,hehe.)

 

The new FAC messaging does add immersion, even if it's only one way.

 

Wags has alot of work in the GOC, I'm a bit surprised he did not use that feature (at least I have not heard any FAC stuff).

 

For a great DC you'd need to build the sim from the ground up.

 

Oh well, what they've given us is pretty nice.

 

Mbot you have made some very good missions.

 

In a perfect world we'd have both a good flexilble DC and good ME and crafted campaign tools. I think the hardware is ready now, but it's $$$$$$$$, hehe.

Edited January 19, 2009 by uhoh7

[815TooCooL]

I don't think it's a misunderstanding - There is a pole of thought that holds that well (human) crafted missions allow a more realistic portrayal of actual battles and correct tactical use of aircraft than those generated by a DC - that a DC generates losts of slightly different missions - but not particularly realistic ones.

+10000000

 

I hope people stop believing tall tale about dynamic campaign.

Especially in modern warfare environment, moreover CAS with choppers!, dynamic campaign can never give us realistic missions.

Maybe WW1 flight sim would be good for dynamic campaign where everyone advance 10m per a day digging trenches.

 

Perfect dynamic campaign would be good, sure! who wouldn't want it! but it can't exist as per Gödel's incompleteness theorems or whatever. :D

 

A guy in my sim community even told me that he won't buy BS cause it's not dynamic campaign. What a Bu*********lsh****t.

[aledmb]

Most of the people that made high-fidelity flight sims in the
Nineties are now making low-fidelity games about snowboarding,
car theft, and pony care.

 

that's a kick in the teeth!

[rapid]

All im going to say is im glad he stuck with it. dynamic campaign or no sim at all i know what i'll choose.:thumbup:

[ericinexile]

+10000000

 

I hope people stop believing tall tale about dynamic campaign.

Especially in modern warfare environment, moreover CAS with choppers!, dynamic campaign can never give us realistic missions.

 

I think this is a misunderstanding of the motivation of those who want a DC in DCS. The DC will design missions for sure. But the player can dismiss those missions and set his own tasks within the living battlefield.

 

Smokin' Hole

[EvilBivol-1]

This is my understanding of ED's views on a DC.

 

As Mbot points out, ED is not against developing a DC on some kind of principle. That "...yet" is there for a reason. ED is in fact interested in developing one, but as we often mention, the practical factor determining what can be implemented is availability of internal resources. At this time, ED is simply not in a position to develop the kind of dynamic campaign system they feel would be worth developing, i.e. a robust one that is able to deliver result that are realistic enough for use by the military. Remember, DCS is all about marrying the development of the two branches - military and entertainment. Hopefully, success in both development branches will allow ED to develop DCS in the way they would like and if so, I'm sure the people and the technology needed to develop a DC engine will become available as well.

Edited January 19, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[RedTiger]

This is my understanding of ED's views on a DC.

 

As Mbot points out, ED is not against developing a DC on some kind of principle. That "...yet" is there for a reason. ED is in fact interested in developing one, but as we often mention, the practical factor determining what can be implemented is availability of internal resources. At this time, ED is simply not in a position to develop the kind of dynamic campaign system they feel would be worth developing, i.e. a robust one that is able to deliver result that are realistic enough for use by the military. Remember, DCS is all about marrying the development of the two branches - military and entertainment. Hopefully, success in both development branches will allow ED to develop DCS in the way they would like and if so, I'm sure the people and the technology needed to develop a DC engine will become available as well.

 

If I may say so, if this doesn't go a long way to putting this one to bed, than I don't know what will. This is -all- that needs to be said, really.

 

Its funny to look at the simulation of the aircraft and think "realism, realism, realism!" and to be excited about military contracts involved and how this will lend authenticity but then revert back the other way in favor of a dynamic campaign that can't even be used by the military, don't you think? ;)

 

Here's a little anecdote for you. I'm playing Red Viper right now. And for the first time, I'm actually enjoying Falcon 4. I'm playing a DC right now and, frankly, really enjoying it. I think that sim and I have finally clicked. I finally "get" why so many people have enjoyed that sim and its DC all these years. However, my enjoyment was won by finally accepting that the DC is far from perfect.

 

I think the moment when I finally realized this is when I read the section in the Red Viper manual about "hacking BARCAPs". What this means is that you take all those otherwise boring and meaningless BARCAPs, reduced the arbitrary patrol time to zero, and then covert that mission into whatever the heck you think would help the most. I either like to fly around and troll the FLOT for high-threat aircraft like MiG-29s, or I like to do some SEAD/DEAD. Fun? Hell yes! Realistic? Not at all. I can honestly say that beyond very, very basic things, I cannot think of any element of the DC that would actually be realistic training for a Viper driver.

 

If ED's idea of "dynamic campaign" is one that the military would be interested in, then this should be a moment of clarity for us. I personally had a previous moment of clarity when I asked why ED couldn't guess a little bit to make otherwise unusable aircraft possible to simulate. The response was basically that anything made for the civilian market would be expected to a valid part of ED's portfolio for military contracts.

 

If Evilbivol's understanding is correct, it would seem that a dynamic campaign is no different! :thumbup:

 

EDIT: IMHO, EvilBivol-1's post should be a sticky on the general forum under the title "ED's philosophy on creating a dynamic campaign". :)

Edited January 20, 2009 by RedTiger

[uhoh7]

The funny thing is, all the guys at the F4 forums will tell you the FM is perfect.

 

Many won't fly an ED sim because, no DC, so they don't know what an FM is.

 

I guess to be fair it's only the SU-25 and the KA-50 FMs that are great.

 

Jeez I wish they'd plug in the SU-25 to DCS as is. I may have to go look for the disc.

 

But who has time for two hard sims at once?

[RedTiger]

Many won't fly an ED sim because, no DC, so they don't know what an FM is.

 

I wanna bump this thread in hopes that more people read EvilBivol's post. :)

 

Regarding Falcon fans who will not fly it due to the lack of a DC, I'm starting to recall that I've never heard any of them say the DC was realistic. What you usually here is "immersion" in contrast to LOMAC which they describe as "sterile".

 

I think that flight sims, as a genre have nailed the avionics part. Getting 90% of the real thing into the simulation is possible. I also think that it has the FM part nailed as well. The next big thing is missions you fly. Right now, it would seem that you have to choose; do you want immersion at the cost of realism or do you want to have to fly missions the pros are expected to but at the cost of some immersion and replay value?

 

I'd guess that Falcon fans would probably say that they'd like both and that both are possible with Falcon. I'd also guess that a lot of them make up for the lack of realism in the DC by flying multiplayer and using realistic protocol and procedures. For me, I never really was interested in sims for anything but flying an aircraft with missions and tactics as close to real life as possible. Any sense of immersion and continuity between missions was a distant secondary concern.

 

A dynamic campaign acceptable to military clients would be a very tall order. I have my doubts about how warm they'd be to such a concept. A pilot could pick up lots of bad habits if he were "abandoned" to learn his craft in such a simulation. Ironically, I think that any dynamic campaign the military would use would have very undynamic controls over the action to make sure that a given learning objective is covered.

Edited January 20, 2009 by RedTiger

[CE_Mikemonster]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=10230&highlight=dynamic+campaign&page=3

 

Hawg 11's post on the subject, back in 2005.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWolf-Loskins

...a DC was never advertised to be in Lockon.

 

Not true, unfortunately.

 

Lock-On FAQ (from http://www.lo-mac.com/faq.php#faq22)

Updated 05.26.03

Will there be a dynamic campaign in Lock On?

Eagle Dynamics is creating a campaign system for Lock On. Details will be provided as it nears completion.

 

Of course, as most folks remember, the programmer who was developing the Dynamic Campaign (DC) left the project. ED then invited Ross MacGreggor to give a DC a try. That project also failed.

 

I guess passing a lock-on history quiz isn't a requirement to being on the beta testing team. hehe. j/k

__________________

 

Anyone who hasn't played a game with a working DC will not understand how immersive they are, and how much more fun the sim CAN be.

[GGTharos]

Anyone who hasn't played a game with a working DC will not understand how immersive they are, and how much more fun the sim CAN be.

 

... nor how buggy and frustrating they can be.

[CE_Mikemonster]

... nor how buggy and frustrating they can be.

 

That's true, i'm not old enough to have played the original Falcon 4.0 campaign.

[GGTharos]

The current one has its quirks too ;)

[CE_Mikemonster]

Not easy by any means of the imagination to make one, but I can't help wondering what games would be like if that side of gaming had been given a higher priority and had actually progressed. Is it true that it (sort of) bankrupted MicroProse?

[GGTharos]

I don't know the history of MicroProse very well, from what I recall Falcon 4 as a whole bankrupted them, not just the DC.

 

It was probably poor management or bad luck, or both. Who knows. The original Falcon 4 was nothing like what you have now, either ... it was a much simpler game.

[CE_Mikemonster]

Yeah I was taking that as a given, seeing it was (10?) years old a few months back. Considering the resources it uses nowadays it has to have come along lol.

Edited January 30, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster
spelling