Dynamic Campaign Generator

[GGTharos]

You can already create a mission builder. There's no secrets in the mission files.

If you want, you can even bolt on addons to the mission editor.

[EtherealN]

Achoice, as I mentioned, all of the hooks needed for that already exist. You need an app that can parse and write some LUA, that's pretty much it. Reading mission progress (for debrief and indata to the next mission) needs only the same hooks that are used by Tacview at the present time.

 

Everything is in there - the only thing missing is enough people with enough spare time. Or perhaps a Linux-style "bounty". :P

[EvilBivol-1]

What i propose is that DCS open up - make it more possible - for us - the community - do develop the DC feature!

As have been discussed here - simple LUA-missions. But hard to "analyse results" after mission. It should be simple (well - relatively) for DCS to open up an API / result file / something - for the comunity to use and build on.

 

I imagine - if DCS open up api/framework of mission building / analysis / etc. we - the community - can together build a DC.

I believe - if DCS wants an active community - the right ting to do is to open up such possibilities.

 

Imagine - us - enthusiasts - developing the DC.. starting with a single player DC... then adapting for an multi player online variant.. A new battle - DC-generated - each day or weekend.

 

Hope someone at DCS reads in on this. And understands the importance of empowering the comunity. It truly is a win-win road in my eyes.

 

regards, David, sweden.

As the guys said, all of this is already possible. LUA export data and mission debrief data can be combined for fairly detailed mission result analysis. A mission generator can then use the trigger system to largely replicate/rebuild the world-state when starting a new mission. The problem is that all of this is in code and not a GUI. So far, there is not the desire in the community to go through the amount of work that would be needed to use this data to create a campaign generator.

 

And in the sim-business - look at the Flight Simulator series.

A popular example, but in my opinion terribly flawed. For one thing, even they are now out of business. Even when they were not, consider the powerhouse behind the product and the time it took to become what it did. There are certainly lessons to be learned from the MSFS line, but only in context. It's more or less a unique example in the entire history of the flight sim business.
Edited February 14, 2010 by EvilBivol-1

[Grimes]

So far, there is not the desire in the community to go through the amount of work that would be needed to use this data to create a campaign generator.

 

 

I've done some research into the matter, but I am personally more concerned with copy & paste features, complicated trigger logic wizards, and general purpose "speeding up" the time it takes to create a mission. I have no interest in specific unit placement within the level or dynamic campaigns created from mission to mission.

 

I think dynamic campaigns are important, but the game lacks the capabilities to provide a convincing one currently. It has been stated in previous posts the lack of a "living world", radio calls from other flights, and more intelligent AI are required to pull of a dynamic campaign. Sure we can create heavily scripted games that mimic all of that stuff... But without any of the previously mentioned features that occur automatically the experience would be flat and non-exciting.

 

IMO, the only mission in BS that creates a "living world" feel is the first one on Deployment, where you literally fly around and are given a tour of the area. No combat, nothing too exciting really, just a flying tour. I can't imagine how much time and energy was spent on that one mission to get all of the timings and radio chatter right. Throw combat into the mix and its basically pointless to try and script it.

[Krippz]

We've discussed dynamic campaigns a few time before, but the subject continues to come up regularly on the forum and we understand it's an issue a lot of combat flight simmers care about.

 

ED has often been criticized for a "sterile" world outside the player-controlled aircraft. Lack of a dynamic campaign and AI radio chatter are often quoted as examples. We know this. Given our own code and our own plans for gaming and military products, a Falcon-style bubble-based dynamic campaign system is not currently seen as an effective solution for us. Instead, ED has been focused on the individual modeling of units and high scriptability of behavior, which are also important features for a combat sim. However, the gameplay problem is recognized and efforts to address it are ongoing. In Black Shark, the mission editor and campaign systems were designed with enhanced mission replayability and variability as a design goal. Granted, neither of these equal a war-centric dynamic campaign, but I think they demonstrate the direction of thought. A number of additional features to enhance mission gameplay are currently in development, many of which we hope to be able to include in DCS: A-10C Warthog. The code is evolving and it was not designed around a large dynamic campaign, so it may take a number of evolutions to get there or similar gameplay experience.

 

Thank you for the thoughtful and well balanced response.

[SUBS17]

What goes well with a DC is DW-Dynamic Weather, it certainly adds alot to a mission in F4AF when the weather changes enroute to the tgt. :thumbup:

[achoice]

Achoice, as I mentioned, all of the hooks needed for that already exist. You need an app that can parse and write some LUA, that's pretty much it. Reading mission progress (for debrief and indata to the next mission) needs only the same hooks that are used by Tacview at the present time.

 

Everything is in there - the only thing missing is enough people with enough spare time. Or perhaps a Linux-style "bounty". :P

 

Oh - ok - is there ok/good api doc's? Where? I'lld like to at least take a look at them.

I've looked at http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Main_Page and it seemes lacking.

[achoice]

I've done some research into the matter, but I am personally more concerned with copy & paste features, complicated trigger logic wizards, and general purpose "speeding up" the time it takes to create a mission. I have no interest in specific unit placement within the level or dynamic campaigns created from mission to mission.

 

I think dynamic campaigns are important, but the game lacks the capabilities to provide a convincing one currently. It has been stated in previous posts the lack of a "living world", radio calls from other flights, and more intelligent AI are required to pull of a dynamic campaign. Sure we can create heavily scripted games that mimic all of that stuff... But without any of the previously mentioned features that occur automatically the experience would be flat and non-exciting.

 

IMO, the only mission in BS that creates a "living world" feel is the first one on Deployment, where you literally fly around and are given a tour of the area. No combat, nothing too exciting really, just a flying tour. I can't imagine how much time and energy was spent on that one mission to get all of the timings and radio chatter right. Throw combat into the mix and its basically pointless to try and script it.

 

Ah - ok, hmm - interesting. I agree. DCS has made a excelent "simulator" - but as a "game", replayability etc. it is lacking as we have discussed.

 

My main reason for my previous post was to argue that "empowering the comunty" have in many cases proven very successfull. Could DCS open up more - enable us, the comunity, to develop a more l"living world"?

- radio chatter (random & scripted)

- more civil traffic

- add 3d modles (houses etc. can we do this now already?)

 

Hm - also problems like "where to place troop items".. how to script placement at "natural defences" etc. API needs to be able to "read the map" - i.e. auto-scrip place troops at choke point, bridges etc.

I guess that troops ar placed by a x/y coordinat - and that it is hard to "scriptedly interpret map geography / characteristics"?

 

regards david.

[achoice]

Thank you for the thoughtful and well balanced response.

 

I agree - very good post & reply. We will probably have to wait a while before we can have what we want. Again - my message - invite the community, enable for the community to extend & enhance the product via openly documented api's & formats. This could make the series boom!

 

regards, david.

[MBot]

I tend to agree with the general consensus, a dynamic campaign is incredibly difficult to pull off and certainly wont appear from today to tomorrow. But ultimately I think it has to be the goal of the DCS series. Everything short of it, including a complex ME, I consider as an interim solution.

 

One of the things that makes a dynamic campaign so hard to do is the ground war. Realistic unit placement and and ground battle are so hard to build even by hand, I have a hard time imaging a mission generator doing it automatically.

 

One way I can see that would make a dynamic campaign considerably easier, although highly unlikely considering the confirmed DCS aircraft, would be to do away with the ground war altogether. I think concentrating on a pure air campaign, winning air superiority, doing SEAD and strikes, would be considerably easier to realize. The complexity of the ground war, enough to justify various games for itself, would fall away. Instead the campaign would concentrate on a pure air battle and fixed, predefined ground targets. Think along the lines of the air strikes against North Vietnam or Libya, or the strategic portion of the Iran-Iraq war (and of course the semi-historical and hypothetical scenarios are almost endless). But like I said, considering the current path of DCS (Ka-50, A-10C), this would be rather unlikely.

[RipKirby]

My own wet dream is even a "general" mode for multiplayer, where one player on each side would be given an interface allowing him to give orders to both players and his AI units. But that's just me dreaming - I'm very pleased with not being an engineer tasked with making that feature happen. :P

 

My wet dream too :v:

[Oscar]

One way I can see that would make a dynamic campaign considerably easier, although highly unlikely considering the confirmed DCS aircraft, would be to do away with the ground war altogether. I think concentrating on a pure air campaign, winning air superiority, doing SEAD and strikes, would be considerably easier to realize. The complexity of the ground war, enough to justify various games for itself, would fall away. Instead the campaign would concentrate on a pure air battle and fixed, predefined ground targets. Think along the lines of the air strikes against North Vietnam or Libya, or the strategic portion of the Iran-Iraq war (and of course the semi-historical and hypothetical scenarios are almost endless). But like I said, considering the current path of DCS (Ka-50, A-10C), this would be rather unlikely.

 

An analysis of WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, OAF, ODS, OIF and OEF (and many others) would not support that position. The sole reason for Air Power is the support the Ground War - whether that be for limited or unlimited political objectives. The only thing Air Power can do - by itself - is peacekeeping and overwatch. Anything beyond that requires "boots on the gound".

 

My own wet dream is even a "general" mode for multiplayer, where one player on each side would be given an interface allowing him to give orders to both players and his AI units. But that's just me dreaming - I'm very pleased with not being an engineer tasked with making that feature happen.

 

Agree 100%. It has been done before and it could be done again (for example: SEOW for IL2). Its very possible. It just requires a commited group of dreamers and do-ers to make it happen.

[RipKirby]

I think we have to look beyond the DC, which for all intents and purposes, is an outdated concept.

 

What we should be thinking about is a persistent map fought over online.

[MBot]

An analysis of WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, OAF, ODS, OIF and OEF (and many others) would not support that position. The sole reason for Air Power is the support the Ground War - whether that be for limited or unlimited political objectives. The only thing Air Power can do - by itself - is peacekeeping and overwatch. Anything beyond that requires "boots on the gound".

 

Whether a strategic air campaign can win a war or not is not the point. Strategic air campaigns have been fought in history, either independent or in a larger context. Simulating it in a dynamic campaign would be a multitude easier than a ground war, simply because a ground war is incredible complex. A strategic scope would in my opinion drastically lower the entry hurdle for a DC. But like I said, considering the scope of Black Shark and A-10C, I guess this is rather unlikely for DCS.