DCS Campaign IS COMING!!! Dynamic Campaign what do you want to see in it?

[OmasRachE]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb NineLine:

The only thing I take from that is we are maybe due for another development report.

Yes, thats what would be very appreceated. As I said, its a communication thing. Lot´s of claims out there, lot´s of noise around the Razbam Situation, DC and the general course of DCS. Some clarification whats your longterm strategie is, and what we could expect from a DC would at least help me to adjust my expectations and get a much better feeling about purchases in the future, I hope.

For example the C130. Basically, I want to own and learn this module. But that primarily depends on its possible use. If I just want to fly it, there’s a better simulator where I can fly large transport aircraft all over the world. However, if I have the prospect of being able to meaningfully use the included gameplay mechanics in a dynamic campaign, then the situation looks quite different. But therefore I want to roughly know, what this DC will look like, and if it will suite my wishes of a dynamic campaign.

Thanks @NineLine for clarifying, that SP, Caucasus and modern era are just development steps. I can live with that. A little deeper insights in what we will be able to do in a DC will help me to anticipate if I will like it or not.

[Silver_Dragon]

On 9/27/2025 at 9:56 PM, MVS-Viper said:

The person responsible for creating the Dynamic Campaign in Falcon 4 was an intern working with the development team.  He is still around and may be a good person to contact for consulting purposes by ED.  Enigma interviewed him some time ago.  Interesting video:

Enigma Interview with Falcon 4 Intern

Remember forum rule 1.15

[dsc106]

23 hours ago, NineLine said:

If you have questions based on what we have released as far as info I can answer that... we are maybe due for another development report... Not all of my answers will satisfy everyone, but in some cases its all I have for now.

Thank you for the reply. My questions would be:

• It was said the Caucasus/Jets only initial pass was a starting place to dial in the "basics". Where are we on that progress many years later? Is ED still in the basics? What percentage of the way to launch are we? Will the dynamic campaign launch with support for all maps, modules, eras? Will SP + MP Support? Will there be robust support for logistics based operations?
• Is a significant overhaul of AI systems coming now that multicore has been implemented, where AI can dogfight intelligently and be bound by the actual full fidelity flight physical flight models of each aircraft?
• Enigma made statements, accurate or not, that Nick stated ED is "****" at the game aspect, and ED accepts that, and focuses on engineering full fidelity modules - that DCS exists to preserve high accuracy airframes, and gameplay is second. Does ED dispute this comment? If it was accurate years ago, how has this changed? In as little ambiguity as possible and with as much detail as possible, what tangible investments has/is ED making to prioritize game-centric aspects of DCS world equally as high as full fidelity module/terrain development? What percentage of the ED team is strictly dedicated to gameplay only developments, to create a core environment where DCS is not just the best at modeling accurately, but giving players a top tier game environment for putting them to use? Is this a strong focus at ED, to not just be best in class at full fidelity modelling, but best in class in gameplay? What is the roadmap to get there?

I understand you personally will likely not have this information, and I also want to point out that I am not trying to be difficult or antagonize. As a customer who was spent more on DCS than any other piece of software in my life - and that is before counting hardware investment specifically for DCS - I would be grateful if ED would be willing to make very clear, detailed statements on their goals and trajectory as a company.

My hope for DCS is that it would be a platform that does not dumb down its high fidelity realism, but rather harnesses it with top-tier game design. There is a huge empty niche to fill here, as other platforms often emphasize game over fidelity. DCS emphasizes, currently, fidelity over game. There are many people hungry for a non compromise platform that merges the best of both worlds. Frankly, the game aspect is easier than what DCS has already achieved. But easier does not mean easy, of course. I am hoping that ED will take seriously what many customers want (and already expect) to see: serious investment into not just the core engine (performance, AI, bugs, etc.) but the core gameplay experience.

Can we have confidence that ED is investing seriously internally in a full time, dedicated team whose sole purpose is to develop the DCS "game" aspect?

That would be my hope for a future development report. I do believe this is a fair ask, and if Nick's alleged statements truly do represent the position of ED, I think it's also fair to ask that ED just explicitly restates its mission statement in 2025 regarding both fidelity and gameplay in no uncertain terms. While I would be disappointed if ED was not very serious about developing the gameside of the platform to its full potential, ultimately, informed understanding of what DCS' intentions are and are not - from the horses mouth and not hearsay - is honorable.

I'll look forward to the next development report, and remain hopeful and optimistic. I hope this post is received in the spirit it is intended - a passionate supporter who has spent a wee bit too much on a product that has always done what it sets out to do quite well... and who is merely looking for clarification on precisely what DCS/ED is setting out to do in 2026 & Beyond.

Cheers.

[NineLine]

7 minutes ago, dsc106 said:

Thank you for the reply. My questions would be:

• It was said the Caucasus/Jets only initial pass was a starting place to dial in the "basics". Where are we on that progress many years later? Is ED still in the basics? What percentage of the way to launch are we? Will the dynamic campaign launch with support for all maps, modules, eras? Will SP + MP Support? Will there be robust support for logistics based operations?
• Is a significant overhaul of AI systems coming now that multicore has been implemented, where AI can dogfight intelligently and be bound by the actual full fidelity flight physical flight models of each aircraft?
• Enigma made statements, accurate or not, that Nick stated ED is "****" at the game aspect, and ED accepts that, and focuses on engineering full fidelity modules - that DCS exists to preserve high accuracy airframes, and gameplay is second. Does ED dispute this comment? If it was accurate years ago, how has this changed? In as little ambiguity as possible and with as much detail as possible, what tangible investments has/is ED making to prioritize game-centric aspects of DCS world equally as high as full fidelity module/terrain development? What percentage of the ED team is strictly dedicated to gameplay only developments, to create a core environment where DCS is not just the best at modeling accurately, but giving players a top tier game environment for putting them to use? Is this a strong focus at ED, to not just be best in class at full fidelity modelling, but best in class in gameplay? What is the roadmap to get there?

I understand you personally will likely not have this information, and I also want to point out that I am not trying to be difficult or antagonize. As a customer who was spent more on DCS than any other piece of software in my life - and that is before counting hardware investment specifically for DCS - I would be grateful if ED would be willing to make very clear, detailed statements on their goals and trajectory as a company.

My hope for DCS is that it would be a platform that does not dumb down its high fidelity realism, but rather harnesses it with top-tier game design. There is a huge empty niche to fill here, as other platforms often emphasize game over fidelity. DCS emphasizes, currently, fidelity over game. There are many people hungry for a non compromise platform that merges the best of both worlds. Frankly, the game aspect is easier than what DCS has already achieved. But easier does not mean easy, of course. I am hoping that ED will take seriously what many customers want (and already expect) to see: serious investment into not just the core engine (performance, AI, bugs, etc.) but the core gameplay experience.

Can we have confidence that ED is investing seriously internally in a full time, dedicated team whose sole purpose is to develop the DCS "game" aspect?

That would be my hope for a future development report. I do believe this is a fair ask, and if Nick's alleged statements truly do represent the position of ED, I think it's also fair to ask that ED just explicitly restates its mission statement in 2025 regarding both fidelity and gameplay in no uncertain terms. While I would be disappointed if ED was not very serious about developing the gameside of the platform to its full potential, ultimately, informed understanding of what DCS' intentions are and are not - from the horses mouth and not hearsay - is honorable.

I'll look forward to the next development report, and remain hopeful and optimistic. I hope this post is received in the spirit it is intended - a passionate supporter who has spent a wee bit too much on a product that has always done what it sets out to do quite well... and who is merely looking for clarification on precisely what DCS/ED is setting out to do in 2026 & Beyond.

Cheers.

Point 1, I don't have anything to report on where it is at in development, but I do understand it to be incredibly complex and you can see aspects changing the core already if you look hard enough. I will ask about a dev report, as it's been a minute. 
Point 2, The AI is constantly being worked on and improved. The DC AI will most likely have aspects unique to how DCs work. Of course, our AI guys and DC Team talk and work together all the time
Point 3. I won't talk about the personal and private conversation between two people; I wasn't there, I do not know the context. That said, I have not seen anything to suggest we don't care about the game aspect of DCS, and in fact, I see improvements to this all the time. Look at DCS back in the A-10C and Ka-50 only days and where we are now, I think, while not always as fast as everyone wants, we are making improvements, and it required hiring people more about gaming and less about simulation. For example, hires for the DC.

[MVS-Viper]

 

12 hours ago, draconus said:

You missed the point. I never said he works/speak for ED, so don't look for it. I said he doesn't.

I don't work or speak for ED either so I refrain from spreading misinformation that ED would have to clarify later.

Hahaha.  You missed the point. This thread is not about Enigma.  And no one said it was.

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Remember forum rule 1.15

Watch the video before you start quoting forum rules.

It is 100% on topic

Edited 2 hours ago by MVS-Viper

[Silver_Dragon]

14 minutes ago, MVS-Viper said:

Watch the video before you start quoting forum rules.

It is 100% on topic

No, that no have nothing to DCS. I dont need see a video talking about the "competence". ED mas making own DC, no a clon about BMS or other system with your own teams, resources.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Silver_Dragon

[MVS-Viper]

44 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

No, that no have nothing to DCS. I dont need see a video talking about the "competence". ED mas making own DC, no a clon about BMS or other system with your own teams, resources.

 

The video I referenced (and posted a link for) is an interview with the man who created the only existing Dynamic Campaign for a flight sim.  This thread is about the development DCS Dynamic Campaign.  What video are you talking about?  
 

Go to the link I posted earlier and listen to the entire interview.  My point about linking the video is that there is an expert out there who can help DCS if they choose to seek his knowledge for their development efforts.  This is all about the Dynamic Campaign.

[Silver_Dragon]

3 minutes ago, MVS-Viper said:

The video I referenced (and posted a link for) is an interview with the man who created the only existing Dynamic Campaign for a flight sim.  This thread is about the development DCS Dynamic Campaign.  What video are you talking about?  
 

Go to the link I posted earlier and listen to the entire interview.  My point about linking the video is that there is an expert out there who can help DCS if they choose to seek his knowledge for their development efforts.  This is all about the Dynamic Campaign.

ohhhh my god... you missing about flysism... 

• il-2 Forgotten Battles
• Mig Alley

Other Dynamics campaigns...

• Warno
• Call of Arms: Gates of Hell
• Pyre
• Graviteam Tactics games

[MAXsenna]

2 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

ohhhh my god... you missing about flysism... 

• il-2 Forgotten Battles
• Mig Alley

And Enemy Engaged. I used to run my own server at home. It was nothing like F4.0, but still very cool.

Haven't tried any of those you mentioned.  

[MAXsenna]

17 minutes ago, MVS-Viper said:

The video I referenced (and posted a link for) is an interview with the man who created the only existing Dynamic Campaign for a flight sim.  This thread is about the development DCS Dynamic Campaign.  What video are you talking about?  

Nah, not the only one as SD points out. We've even had it for helis. Enemy engaged.

Anyway, haven't watched the mentioned video. It's relevant, though it's like 15 years later than a very good interview that's out there.

19 minutes ago, MVS-Viper said:

My point about linking the video is that there is an expert out there who can help DCS if they choose to seek his knowledge for their development efforts.

And people were laughing at me on this very forum ≈five years ago, when I suggested that ED acquired the license for F 4.0 to speed up the DC development and get better AI.

Oh, the irony! Anyone with two brain cells that did pay attention, would know the Microprose dudes were aiming to do a Phoenix.

@Silver_Dragon The discussion is absolutely relevant about the "competition", (I assume you didn't mean "competence" even if that's kinda relevant too), because that dynamic campaign IS to this day the holy grail that everyone wants. I know ED doesn't want to be a copy cat and do their own thing. While making a dynamic campaign, the only way to do it that makes sense, is to build it around a real time strategy game. Release CA 2.0 and you have a winner.

[twistking]

On 9/28/2025 at 6:44 PM, NineLine said:

The only thing I take from that is we are maybe due for another development report. 

Maybe something to consider for an upcoming development report:
From very early info about the DC (I think from Wags in a podcast, back when it was still in its early dev phase) it sounded like the DC and its logic would be a proprietary, monolithic system rather than a modular collection of parts.

From more recent info though, it seems you’ve shifted toward a more modular approach. Improvements to logic and AI are being treated as core features, and the framework might even apply to user campaigns or missions of any size. Maybe I’m being optimistic, but I believe that’s the only really reasonable option.

I’d appreciate if a future development report could clarify how the DC will play out in this regard.

[MVS-Viper]

We can debate this for hours.  With this reply, I’m done posting in this thread because our extended discussion here is not fair to the person who created this thread.

There are a lot of titles out there that claim they have a “Dynamic Campaign”.  IL 2 is the only one that probably comes close to having a DC.

There is only one flight sim title out there today with a true DC.  
 

I’m hoping DCS becomes the next one

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

That said, I have not seen anything to suggest we don't care about the game aspect of DCS, and in fact, I see improvements to this all the time.

Not only does this aspect have a long way to go, I'm not really seeing it getting much better, even compared to the old days. Finishing a campaign mission still boots you back to the main menu (as opposed to loading up the next one, as is the industry standard), the briefing UI is clunky at best and neither especially powerful nor immersive, there's no way to include custom post-mission debriefing text, nor a way to make any customizations to the campaign completion screen (or even replace the music).

Here's a few suggestions that would help:
1. Better briefings. A "slideshow" with large format graphics and rich text below the graphic. For DC, it could use a few (handmade) slides with spaces for DC engine to insert things like target names and callsigns.
2. Custom debriefing in similar vein, with the ability to hide or show slides according to mission logic.
3. Ability to play a video clip before and/or after a mission.
4. Custom campaign intro and outro, in the same vein.

Since this would be a large UI overhaul and probably include significant dev effort, you could start by opening the campaign completion screen up for people to insert something other than the generic congratulations (which sound especially silly when the campaign was purely a training one). Good, immersive UI is a big part of the game aspect. I'm not asking you to hire Mark Hamill to do a Wing Commander 3 level of immersive environment between missions (that said, old space games could be great for inspiration), but it could be a lot better than it is now. 

[Silver_Dragon]

7 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

@Silver_Dragon The discussion is absolutely relevant about the "competition", (I assume you didn't mean "competence" even if that's kinda relevant too), because that dynamic campaign IS to this day the holy grail that everyone wants. I know ED doesn't want to be a copy cat and do their own thing. While making a dynamic campaign, the only way to do it that makes sense, is to build it around a real time strategy game. Release CA 2.0 and you have a winner.

Let me just say this: I understand that some people haven't bothered to even look at the old development reports for the dynamic campaign, where ED clearly stated that it would address real-time military operations, including logistics and other aspects. And in their "old" job postings, they were looking for engineers (not programmers) to create a realistic dynamic campaign system...

Let's remember that ED has talked about military formations, tactics, strategy, production, and supply. And at one point (I think it was Wags), they mentioned that they were basing their work on the tactics and strategies of real military organizations (I don't know to what extent they actually implemented this). We should also remember that they had military contracts since the time of the Ka-50, and "perhaps" they could have reached that level of expertise.

Now, and this is something I'm very clear about: a Campaign 2.0 has absolutely nothing to do with tactics, just as creating a land or naval environment would have absolutely nothing to do with it. The "scale" some people want is orders of magnitude beyond what BMS achieved... because simulating the scale of a full-scale war would dwarf anything that can be simulated on a PC. You just have to read a little about tactics, strategy, and logistics to realize the sheer "magnitude" of what is being requested...

And that's why I'm so critical of the "competition." Back then, the land and naval environment in BMS was a complete joke (I criticized it very harshly). I didn't spend years reading TRADOC publications, old FM manuals for the opposing forces, and modern naval tactics (from both sides) just to laugh at how much of what they tried to simulate were just simple abstractions.

And let's not even talk about simulating a naval environment... there are some wargames that simulate many aspects of that, but no simulator has ever managed to achieve it (although some wargames have come close to that level of complexity).

[MAXsenna]

10 minutes ago, MVS-Viper said:

We can debate this for hours.  With this reply, I’m done posting in this thread because our extended discussion here is not fair to the person who created this thread.

That's fine, while if you read the OP's second sentence it's very much invited.

11 minutes ago, MVS-Viper said:

There are a lot of titles out there that claim they have a “Dynamic Campaign”.  

No need to respond, while when you come with false information, you're gonna get called out for it. Enemy Engaged definitely had a dynamic campaign, and was one of the selling points, and even inspired by The Holy Grail. You probably don't know because you never played it. 

Cheers!