Anyone else getting a little bit bored with BS?

[VMFA117_Poko]

Just seeing the ten or so lines of printed radio chatter in that article was like Christmas morning. Though, It seems that the real Christmas will come soon after the 25th this year.

Wow! Didn't see that article before :huh:

 

http://www.simhq.com/_air13/air_440a.html

[GGTharos]

And this is just the tip of the iceberg - my point here being not so much in relation to the DCS:A-10C module, but specifically to the DCS series ... don't see something that you might want in the current module?

 

Put it in the wishlist. Chances are you'll see it some time down the road. Yeah, you have to patient - that won't ever change probably - but things have a way of finding their way into DCS if appropriate and there's time for them.

 

Just seeing the ten or so lines of printed radio chatter in that article was like Christmas morning. Though, It seems that the real Christmas will come soon after the 25th this year.

[Krippz]

Well I picked up Falcon 4.0 Allied Force this past weekend and it's campaign system is AMAZING. The dynamic campaign makes you feel like your actually working towards something. I hope ED tries to go into that direction.

[lawndartleo]

Anyone around long enough to have witnessed the birth of falcon 4.0 will well remember that the dynamic campaign was any thing but dynamic way back when. All that virtual warfare consumed resources and wore even good PCs to a halt.

 

Be careful what you ask for, you may get it and regret it.

[Arrowhead]

Not to mention, F4 was nothing but a CTDfest back in the day. It took enormous efforts from the community and nearly a decade to get it where it is today. But now the engine is extremely dated and only the very hardcore of us can appreciate it.

 

Even I feel more immersed in LOMAC than I ever could in F4 just because my brain finds the flight models and visuals more believable. F4 is still too rigid and rough around the edges, even with all of the best efforts from the mod community.

[Endoplasmic Reticulum]

Anyone around long enough to have witnessed the birth of falcon 4.0 will well remember that the dynamic campaign was any thing but dynamic way back when. All that virtual warfare consumed resources and wore even good PCs to a halt.

 

Be careful what you ask for, you may get it and regret it.

 

I can neither confirm, nor deny what you say. I have witnessed the birth of Falcon 4 and made my first steps in realistic flight-sims with it. And back then I could'nt scientifically analyze the dynamic campaign. I had none of the problems you have experienced with it. The community worked (and still does) hard with some Falcon variants to add more realism to it. Those guys did and still do a great job.

 

I don't think anyone would regret a dynamic campaign added to DCS. Why should they? Nowadays everyone playing sims has a PC that is fast enough to handle dynamic campaign.

 

So I don't really understand your negative point towards F4. It still kicks ass and I hope to see the fifth version of it. The communikation is still unmatched and gives so much realism into the game. I wished ED would rethink the communikation in BS and adds much more choices to the game...errrrr.... SIM (sorry);).

[EtherealN]

I don't think anyone would regret a dynamic campaign added to DCS. Why should they? Nowadays everyone playing sims has a PC that is fast enough to handle dynamic campaign.

 

ED might. Because it is ED who has to spend the money on development to make it work - and make it work to the quality standards set by DCS.

[Endoplasmic Reticulum]

ED might. Because it is ED who has to spend the money on development to make it work - and make it work to the quality standards set by DCS.

 

But I see nothing negative in this effort to implement it. They already did hard work in creating this sim. And their money and development they spend will flow right back on their account when I pay for the next module. WORD ;)!!! So I dont expect them to create a new sim for free. I think noone in here does.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Endoplasmic Reticulum

[Ramstein]

Anyone around long enough to have witnessed the birth of falcon 4.0 will well remember that the dynamic campaign was any thing but dynamic way back when. All that virtual warfare consumed resources and wore even good PCs to a halt.

 

Be careful what you ask for, you may get it and regret it.

 

 

F4 was always in the process of 3rd party development and it was always the best game in town for jets...

 

over the years of packs and super packs, it went through lots of growing pains for many years..

 

the dynamic campaign still is looked upon as one of the best ever...

also Falcon 4 was really user friendly for computers and did not take as many reources are other sims did. I can't think of one bad thing to say about F4, with all the offical and unoffiacal addons, mods, patches, tweaks, maps, and the list is too expansive..

 

it was the best bargain and the manual was second to none..

 

thank the thousand sof hours and 3rd parties for bringing it from a 1998 follow up from Falcon 3 to the evolution into F4 Allied Force and the rest of the free addons that had countless flavors and also developed some of the best online flying...

 

at this time Frugal's website is down, as he will have it back up soon, he says, until then, the best F4 resource is? I don't know,, as Frugals was/is the best for all things Falcon 4.

 

:thumbup:

[Endoplasmic Reticulum]

 

thank the thousands of hours and 3rd parties for bringing it from a 1998 follow up from Falcon 3 to the evolution into F4 Allied Force and the rest of the free addons that had countless flavors and also developed some of the best online flying...

 

at this time Frugal's website is down, as he will have it back up soon, he says, until then, the best F4 resource is? I don't know,, as Frugals was/is the best for all things Falcon 4.

 

:thumbup:

 

Yep. I agree. Frugals was THE site for all F4 stuff, although making a fresh install of Falcon was quite a pain, because collecting all SPs and correct addons and mods in the appropriate order was sometimes confusing. Many things could go wrong while doing it and I was happy at least when I finally managed to set it up correctly.

 

The more I hate real wars, the more I love sim-wars. Powered by Lockheed Martin, Sukhoi, MiG and Kamov :thumbup:.

 

Aaaaaannnnndddd.... It had a fat 700 and some-page excellent manual included!!!!!!

Edited December 8, 2009 by Endoplasmic Reticulum

[EtherealN]

On the Falcon4 example: how many times has that property changed owners? From my ownmemory there's at least one, perhaps two, bankruptcies in the bacground of that simulator (and one source code leak).

 

Then there's a bunch of people working for free and doing great stuff with it. But do note the fact that they were working for free.

 

...and the debate in another thread very recently where Speed_2, an F4 fan, actually provided a list of really big failures of this fabled dynamic campaign (although others, like Feuerfalke, did not agree with his judgement) such as the fact that it is extremely stupid and requires human intervention in the same way as the old EECH and EEAH.

 

If you approach ED with the money required to develop this feature I'm sure they'll give it a try. But until then you should realize that there are very good reasons why they won't risk bankruptcy to provide a feature that has not proven a capability to give a realistic combat environment.

[Frederf]

Honestly a F4-like dynamic campaign has been successfully argued as not prudent to my satisfaction. The Ka-50 does not shine in the conventional, large scale warfare sense as the GOW campaign shows.

 

However just because such a campaign maybe isn't the best idea, there is still plenty of room for improvement from the environment. There could be inter-flight communication, FAC interface, more complex airfield control, etc. The wingman AI could use a slew of more in-depth commands. Having a realtime pre-flight environment would be excellent.

 

Just imagine sitting through a brief with a full F-10 style map and creating/editing out your plan before ever getting in the seat. You travel for 20 minutes to the pre-planned spot at the designated time and switch to VHF1 to contact the ground commander that gives you an intercept order for an incoming force.

 

You leave your wingman on a hilltop ahead of the suspected enemy with a 3km maneuver leash, a medium weapon freeness, hover attack tactics, and a standoff weapon preference. Navigating around the valley the convoy sees you and gets off an SA-9 shot. Breaking away and dumping flares the convoy pops smoke and scatters down side roads making a difficult target. Just as you stabilize at a safe distance the ground force commander's radio crackles in and tells you of a new higher priority threat and you're away.

 

You switch to the Su-25 package's frequency overhead and give them a point to attack on the original convoy. It won't be as good as your attack but it'll keep 'em from coming through.

 

How much of this is normal/possible in DCS:BS?

[Endoplasmic Reticulum]

On the Falcon4 example: how many times has that property changed owners? From my ownmemory there's at least one, perhaps two, bankruptcies in the bacground of that simulator (and one source code leak).

 

Then there's a bunch of people working for free and doing great stuff with it. But do note the fact that they were working for free.

 

...and the debate in another thread very recently where Speed_2, an F4 fan, actually provided a list of really big failures of this fabled dynamic campaign (although others, like Feuerfalke, did not agree with his judgement) such as the fact that it is extremely stupid and requires human intervention in the same way as the old EECH and EEAH.

 

If you approach ED with the money required to develop this feature I'm sure they'll give it a try. But until then you should realize that there are very good reasons why they won't risk bankruptcy to provide a feature that has not proven a capability to give a realistic combat environment.

 

There you may be right. I would'nt want ED to go bankrupt. Sure.

[Endoplasmic Reticulum]

[quote=Frederf;796253

 

 

 

Just imagine sitting through a brief with a full F-10 style map and creating/editing out your plan before ever getting in the seat. You travel for 20 minutes to the pre-planned spot at the designated time and switch to VHF1 to contact the ground commander that gives you an intercept order for an incoming force.

 

You leave your wingman on a hilltop ahead of the suspected enemy with a 3km maneuver leash, a medium weapon freeness, hover attack tactics, and a standoff weapon preference. Navigating around the valley the convoy sees you and gets off an SA-9 shot. Breaking away and dumping flares the convoy pops smoke and scatters down side roads making a difficult target. Just as you stabilize at a safe distance the ground force commander's radio crackles in and tells you of a new higher priority threat and you're away.

 

 

 

How much of this is normal/possible in DCS:BS?

 

From which movie-script did you steal this scenario;)?

ED will have a hard time realising you wishes. But I like your scanario and am curious how much would be realizable.

[Speed_2]

On the Falcon4 example: how many times has that property changed owners? From my ownmemory there's at least one, perhaps two, bankruptcies in the bacground of that simulator (and one source code leak).

 

Then there's a bunch of people working for free and doing great stuff with it. But do note the fact that they were working for free.

 

...and the debate in another thread very recently where Speed_2, an F4 fan, actually provided a list of really big failures of this fabled dynamic campaign (although others, like Feuerfalke, did not agree with his judgement) such as the fact that it is extremely stupid and requires human intervention in the same way as the old EECH and EEAH.

 

If you approach ED with the money required to develop this feature I'm sure they'll give it a try. But until then you should realize that there are very good reasons why they won't risk bankruptcy to provide a feature that has not proven a capability to give a realistic combat environment.

 

I don't buy that arguement. No one went bankrupt because of the dynamic campaign. The F4 Hasbro team was broken up probably because the game didn't sell well enough- I don't remember. G2 interactive quit working on Falcon 4, dumped some members, and reformed as XSI to make a brand new game. And Lead Pursuit successfully resold Falcon 4 after packaging together many of the best community changes and making great changes of their own in 2005. They claim to be hard at work on a new flight sim now, and the vague descriptions of this project that they have provided sound alot like Falcon 5.

 

But to tie the failure of two software companies directly and solely to a dynamic campaign system just makes no sense. In every game that has ever had a dynamic campaign system implemented that I have ever seen, it has only expotentially increased the entertainment value.

 

As far as a dynamic campaign in DCS BS, a Falcon 4-style all out war just simply isn't appropriate given the Black Shark's mission, BUT NEITHER IS A SCRIPTED CAMPAIGN THAT DOESN'T HAVE FACs OR RADIO COMMS YOU CAN INTERACT WITH. However, a dynamic campaign system of some sort would be a very welcome addition to DCS A-10, as the A-10 WAS designed to fight in a total war. And just because Falcon 4's campaign had some failings doesn't mean that ED's would have them too. The MAIN thing that is missing from Falcon 4's campaign system is an overall AI that controls strategy. That wouldn't be too hard to implement- i.e:

 

IF (the number of enemy aircraft entering friendly airspace increases 10%)

{

CAP_PRIORITY = CAP_PRIORITY*1.1;

}

 

See, THAT'S the kind of thing that is missing from Falcon 4's campaign, and it would be an EASY addition.

[Glowing_Amraam]

Can't we just agree with the fact that ED hasn't ruled out the possibility of a dynamic campaign for future DCS modules? I'm kinda thinking, if ED wants to do one, they want to do it right :)

[GGTharos]

All this other stuff aside ...

 

As far as a dynamic campaign in DCS BS, a Falcon 4-style all out war just simply isn't appropriate given the Black Shark's mission, BUT NEITHER IS A SCRIPTED CAMPAIGN THAT DOESN'T HAVE FACs OR RADIO COMMS YOU CAN INTERACT WITH.

 

THis has nothing to do with a DC, as you correctly mentioned. It is very achievable without a DC. Already DCS has the ability to create GAI/CAP missions based on certain triggers, though at this time it is less flexible than you suggest.

 

And no, it isn't easy to add.

[Arrowhead]

Multiplayer is the future. Instead of attempting to do the near impossible and making a competently AI directed campaign, there should be a chain of command system implemented with human commander positions on both sides directing AI forces and human players alike on large dedicated servers. No need bogging down our computers with AI calculations when we have all of this grey matter sitting around.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Arrowhead

[H-street]

Multiplayer is the future. Instead of attempting to do the near impossible and making a competently AI directed campaign, there should be a chain of command system implemented with human commander positions on both sides directing AI forces and human players alike on large dedicated servers. No need bogging down our computers with AI calculations when we have all of this grey matter sitting around.

 

 

Actually the Dynamic Campaign of F4 was very specific in that it was geared towards multiplayer.

Falcon 4.0 was designed as a multiplayer game from the very beginning.

By designing the campaign system and Virtual Universe (VU) first, the human player became one element in a much bigger war. To create a multiplayer game, all we had to do was substitute real players for AI-controlled entities.

 

If you look at the breadth and scale of Falcon 4.0's campaign, it could have easily gone towards the scale of a small MMO. It was and still is very cutting edge for multiplayer, not many games (i can't really think of any outside an MMO) that allows for a campaign to run and players to join in at any time in the campaign.

[InFireBaptize]

i have just ordered lockon because of the upcoming flaming cliff 2.0. I liked the demo :joystick:

[astrospud]

It's a fantastic game, key to keep it good is by not playing it all the time ;)

 

I've mainly been playing FSX and BF2142 lately to give a break. Then when I WANT to play it it's far more fun. That and I'm more of a fixed wing person waiting for A-10 :)

 

Couldn't agree more! Incidently, I am a BS noob, only flown a handful of missions and mostly MP since August, so the game is still fresh for me.

But i do mix it up with other games. Also FSX and 2142 as well.

Sure they are not in the same vane as BS - FSX is simulation, but not in the same camp as BS, IMHO, and 2142 is just pure MP slugfest.

Where ever your interest lies, you are only limited to your descision to take a break from that which has lost it's shine.

I have been playing 2142 since it came out (2006). Took a break for about 8 months, came back and the people I play with (TOG -The Older Gamers)

make it fresh and fun.

Try MP BS, or join a squadron with casual easygoing players. It's fun, flying with real humans. They are just as competitive - or fallable - as you are.

[Ramstein]

IL-2 DCG Campaign Generator, a utility is an excellent tool used in the IL-2 flight sim was developed by a 3rd party... it would be very nice if somone could figure out how to make a tool like that for LO and BS.

 

It could keep a rolling campaign refreshing as the feedback and inputs permit..

 

But, yes, Black Shark would not use the dynamic campaign the same as a flight sim.. but with LO:FC combined with Black Shark, a rolling campaign generator would work well..

 

as it is now, making missions with logic and stringing them together by hand into a cmapaign is a full time job..

 

if only someone with the programming talent could make the utility to do this..

 

IMHO

[HitchHikingFlatlander]

Just to reply to the first question of this thread: NO

 

Not getting bored still just getting started, but personally for me its not just missions its also about flying. I'm as happy blowing stuff up as I am just taking off and landing.:pilotfly:

 

To each there own though!

[jctrnacty]

I finished all missions and campaigns, all i can say is after that I never played BS again.

 

I was missing more interesting and amusing missions not just fly there kill everything returnback to base.

 

I also missed the feel of being in real war, that is something Falcon 4 can do better.

 

I dont think that ED is planing to ship a DC in near future if ever. They still improve ME but as you know it can support only triggers.

 

Just want to say i love BS and always support ED but the missions are somewhat sterile and boring(and AI of ground units very simple).

[GGTharos]

They still improve ME but as you know it can support only triggers.

 

Just want to say i love BS and always support ED but the missions are somewhat sterile and boring(and AI of ground units very simple).

 

It's all subject to improvement. You never know what the ME might be capable of tomorrow ;)