Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

[sobek]

Since the vid is no longer available, i'll try it out myself next time i fire the sim up.

 

Just let me tell you that IMHO the flight model 'feels' very good, i would not set it on par with DCS, especially the transition from flight to wow feels better in DCSW, but over all it is a major leap forward compared to the old flight model. Mav has really done an amazing job.

[EtherealN]

Oh yeah, I've heard good things about the feel of it. :)

 

As another point of interest and more on-topic; did BMS do anything with the DC? If that has undergone an overhaul that would definitely be worth checking out just to see what they did. The DC itself isn't a "big deal" for me, as I've said, but since it is such a complex thing to do I'd definitely love to see what can happen if you throw more powerful hardware on it than what it used to have alloted and have it actually use it properly. No point comparing a sort of replaced DC to the DCS-favored system if there's new stuff in it. :)

 

NoJoe, correct, it's with override. The issue, flight-model wise, is that with override on you can apparently do things that are just not possible.

[NoJoe]

NoJoe, correct, it's with override. The issue, flight-model wise, is that with override on you can apparently do things that are just not possible.

 

Ahhh, okay, I see what you mean now.

 

Guess we'll just have to wait for DCS: Fighter. :thumbup: Still, all the stuff I said about what made Falcon's dynamic campaign compelling to me is still valid. :D

 

--NoJoe

[Jona33]

Personally I would be so annoyed if ED ever took the current mission editor out. Sometimes you want a mission t play the same so the next mission makes sense. If you want a "believable" use the ME and do some work. All it takes is some decently written briefings and some imagination that makes the missions interesting. The DC campaigns in Falcon have no feeling behind them, they don't get your heart racing. If they do implement a DC I'd like them to leave the ME in place along with scripted campaigns so you have a choice about how you want to fly.

[Bushmanni]

Problem with dynamic campaigns so far has been that you are fighting logic rules and math equations, not something that has imagination and creativity. As long as your SA and intel is bad enough you may be able to not see it. My limited experience with BMS DC is that it delivers mostly plausible situation progress and enemy reaction and has kept up the appearances so far. Nothing special but nothing annoyingly stupid, ridiculous or illogical either.

 

With current machines you need the bubble method to run a very big war like in Falcon4 or GTA4 for example. I don't know if you can have the bubble method and current DCS mission scripting system co-exist. But I definitely wan't to keep the current system and have it evolve.

[NoJoe]

Personally I would be so annoyed if ED ever took the current mission editor out [...] If they do implement a DC I'd like them to leave the ME in place along with scripted campaigns so you have a choice about how you want to fly.

 

Yes, definitely! :yes: The current ME is great!

 

--NoJoe

[HiJack]

I hope ED implements a choise to be a bit unpredictable in the mission. For instance they could just start with strenght decision if one of the sides should retract units or engage. It could be set at GROUP level on both sides and only on a few groups to start with. The system could grow with the release of new DCS series.

 

(HJ)

[Moa]

I hope ED implements a choise to be a bit unpredictable in the mission. For instance they could just start with strenght decision if one of the sides should retract units or engage. It could be set at GROUP level on both sides and only on a few groups to start with. The system could grow with the release of new DCS series.

(HJ)

 

The mission editor does currently have a feature to generate a mission for you (presumably using randomized elements).

[Succellus]

The mission editor does currently have a feature to generate a mission for you (presumably using randomized elements).

 

Problem is you see vectors falling out of the sky by fuel out before reaching target....ai must be improved, or ME generator must be smarter itself by using tools inside tools wich is also complex.

 

as dumb as F4 and EF2000 DCT (Dynamic Continuous Theater) were, is still better than to have to loose hours on ME to overcome AI issues.

 

So before DCS gain anything near a DCT AI must be improved and unfortunatly that ain t a small task.

 

Is you want a "perfect" DCT you have to shell military kind $$$$. And they dont even want some.

 

So in this case a prefer a flawed DCT with the actual ME along it would be perfect world i don t know why so many thing they can t coexist, how many times did i change mission parameters in EF and F4 to suit my personal need and strike a weakness in the DCT flawed logic.

 

Anyway we only win DCT becuae they fail in logic. The day they won t we wont be able to win a single border combat.

[mattag08]

Even though I'm not adding anything new, I feel the need to speak up about the addition of a dynamic campaign as well if only to case one more vote in its favor. I own all of ED's products and enjoyed learning to fly all of them, yet I've stopped playing them all and returned to Falcon 4 (now F4 BMS) because of the dynamic campaign.

 

Say what you will about the coding and algorithms and magic behind the GUI, it still feels like a real, working world and ultimately perception is all that matters. Scripting just doesn't create the same feel and unfortunately, if you script at least one person will always know exactly what's going to happen. In the F4 campaign you even get some level of "intel" which directly relates to your recon flights. It is entirely possible to have significant fog of war if your recon aircraft get shot down, did not scan a particular area, or cannot depart because their airbase was destroyed.

 

The fact that there are AI who react to scenarios in a semi-real way is also engaging and significantly increases replayability. The knowledge that if I penetrate the FLOT the enemy is going to launch alert fighters to intercept me or the idea that if I wander off course I could stumble into an enemy SAM battalion that I don't have threat information on keeps me on edge.

 

The tracking of every aircraft flight, supplies, ammunition, individual units in a battalion, aircraft/pilots in a squadron, etc. all make the world feel persistent and ultimately persistence is what you need to feel the highest levels of immersion.

 

Ultimately, ED's products would have a large increase in replay value if they did one or both of the following:

 

1) Create a dynamic campaign, even if it is not perfect (and these days, what things are released that are perfect?). Give us something basic and build on it with each iteration.

 

2) Add some functionality to the mission editor. See: ArmA 2 for ideas on how to make a good mission editor. That thing is absolutely amazing. Pay particular attention to the ability to place units (and unit waypoints/instructions) within a random radius. This is one of the key features that allows the mission designer to participate without knowing exactly what's going to happen.

[Nate--IRL--]

1) Create a dynamic campaign, even if it is not perfect (and these days, what things are released that are perfect?). Give us something basic and build on it with each iteration.

 

2) Add some functionality to the mission editor. See: ArmA 2 for ideas on how to make a good mission editor. That thing is absolutely amazing. Pay particular attention to the ability to place units (and unit waypoints/instructions) within a random radius. This is one of the key features that allows the mission designer to participate without knowing exactly what's going to happen.

 

For Number 1 this process has begun with the random mission generator. But what's planned next I don't know or when. But the general idea is to slowly progress in small steps toward a Dynamic campaign of some sort.

 

As for number 2 the idea of random events in a mission is perfectly possible to create already, with the use of triggers and setting random probabilities. However I'll admit this does take a bit of thought to construct on the mission designers part. But if properly done even the mission designer won't know what's going to happen.

 

Nate

[mattag08]

As for number 2 the idea of random events in a mission is perfectly possible to create already, with the use of triggers and setting random probabilities. However I'll admit this does take a bit of thought to construct on the mission designers part. But if properly done even the mission designer won't know what's going to happen.

It's not really the same. The designer still know exactly where he placed all of the possibly 'random' units. With ArmA's setup you pick and point and a radius and every time the mission is loaded the game generates spawns and waypoints somewhere within that radius.

[EtherealN]

You don't have to have your randomized elements be static. ;)

[Nate--IRL--]

It's not really the same. The designer still know exactly where he placed all of the possibly 'random' units. With ArmA's setup you pick and point and a radius and every time the mission is loaded the game generates spawns and waypoints somewhere within that radius.

 

It would be nice to have that done in one click in DCS too. The Random Mission generator kind of does this, but only for a stand alone mission. I might have think about this and then stick it in the wish list.

 

Nate

[EtherealN]

I'm not sure I agree with it's usefulness though - at least not "as-is". It would require some pretty advanced logic functions that can analyze the map, otherwise all it'll do is stick units where they don't make sense (like parking armored assets in indefensible positions, SHORAD where they don't have a useable FOV etc). But that said - the problem does affect the randomized missions, so porting it over to use by the mission designer might be a good opportunity to implement such routines.

 

Worth thinking about, definitely.

[mattag08]

I'm not sure I agree with it's usefulness though - at least not "as-is". It would require some pretty advanced logic functions that can analyze the map, otherwise all it'll do is stick units where they don't make sense (like parking armored assets in indefensible positions, SHORAD where they don't have a useable FOV etc). But that said - the problem does affect the randomized missions, so porting it over to use by the mission designer might be a good opportunity to implement such routines.

 

Worth thinking about, definitely.

Well, hopefully the mission designer is intelligent enough to properly place them. As always, the mission designer has to be familiar with the things he's manipulating. Otherwise how would he design effectively?

 

A third option to increase replayability that I failed to mention would be to have a static campaign where the player (or players in MP) could manipulate units, add packages of aircraft, etc. This would be as simple as incorporating new GUIs, the mission editor, and random generator together with some coherent, logical, and accurate code that simulates supply chains, keeps track of unit counts, simulates movement and engagement, etc.

 

Then each mission would be self contained, but would be a continuation of previous events and would still have the benefits of being persistent and player driven/affected.

[EtherealN]

Well, hopefully the mission designer is intelligent enough to properly place them.

 

Well, that's the point. It's not up to the mission designer. ;)

Here's your statement, which shall serve to illustrate what I mean:

 

With ArmA's setup you pick and point and a radius and every time the mission is loaded the game generates spawns and waypoints somewhere within that radius.

 

This essentially ends up like this: either the radii in question are so small as to ensure proper tactical placement, at which point the mission designer will still know where the unit is and the whole point is defeated. Or you make it big enough that the designer won't know, but you have to hope they don't end up in stupid places.

 

If you want the mission designer to be intelligent enough to properly place them, that's exactly what we already have with DCS. :)

[Grimes]

Predictability is currently the biggest threat to the dynamic feeling of a DCS mission. We can modify which group spawns and when, however their location and movements are precisely the same every single time. Thankfully with player interaction and cold-starts the time it takes from the start of a mission till the first point of enemy contact will almost always be at least slightly different from the last play through. That said, the target has to be moving in order to make the experience a little different, even then you will have an idea where you will find the target.

 

Given the scope of combat and the type of terrain available it is a little unfair to compare DCS and ARMA2. Comparatively ARMA is on a micro level of combat and DCS is at the macro level. By the needs of the game, ARMA just needs to do ground combat better, but it is still interesting to compare features of the two games mission editors and AI behavior. The key difference between ARMA2 AI and DCS AI is that in ARMA2 the AI will react and move according to the current situation and threats. If you pop over a hill and shoot at a squad, and then retreat behind the hill, that squad will attempt to hunt you down by searching your last known location. In DCS if you do the same thing... well the AI have to have waypoints to react to the threat... otherwise they will just sit there.

 

I think a "spawn anywhere in zone" trigger could be useful if you could choose between multiple zones or if we could use vector shapes to define the shape of a zone. That said even spawning in a single circular shaped zone has its benefits, while still having some pitfalls as EtherealN outlined. We have several alternative methods to achieving the same type of functionality, however they all have several more steps needed for creation and have a fair bit more predictability associated with it. But again, it comes back to macro vs micro. A randomly spawned and randomly moving unit in ARMA2 has a much greater impact as the time to locate and attack the target is several times shorter than in a DCS game where you spot a target upwards of 20 miles away. Moving a 100 feet in ARMA makes a big deal, moving the same distance in DCS is hardly considered a major impact. However, moving a SHORAD even a small distance can cause a considerable amount of anxiety as you KNOW its there somewhere... just not sure where.

[mattag08]

Well, that's the point. It's not up to the mission designer. ;)

Here's your statement, which shall serve to illustrate what I mean:

 

 

 

This essentially ends up like this: either the radii in question are so small as to ensure proper tactical placement, at which point the mission designer will still know where the unit is and the whole point is defeated. Or you make it big enough that the designer won't know, but you have to hope they don't end up in stupid places.

 

If you want the mission designer to be intelligent enough to properly place them, that's exactly what we already have with DCS. :)

The answer in ArmA--and would work here--is to pick an area of relatively similar terrain so that it doesn't matter where in the radius it spawns. Additionally, you place multiple units in overlapping areas so that you can never be sure how many there are or where they all would be.

 

It doesn't matter if you know the general direction of a threat. That's probably realistic in terms of the intel given to pilots before a mission. What you don't want is to know the precise locations of every possible enemy.

[EtherealN]

But with targeting pods letting you do precise studies of the terrain from 20+nm, that wouldn't make much difference. "Those fields over there." [slew TGP for a minute from 20nm out] "all of them marked, awesome."

 

I don't disagree that it could be a nice feature, but I think you greatly overestimate the impact of it. Further, it would be impossible to make a realistic force with such a tool; instead of getting a defended position or spearhead formation that makes sense, you'll get whatever the randomizer creates, and get nonsense out of the mission.

 

This isn't so big a deal in ARMA, because in that game a group of 4 tanks kan be a big deal, and can easily consitute a tangible and dangerous OPFOR. In DCS, you need a lot more than that simply because the scales are larger.

 

If you want to try it, make a mission that randomizes on startup between a huge amount of possible units - place 100 units randomly in a given area, have 10 of them spawn with randomization triggers, and see if the positions "make sense".

 

Essentially, what you're saying can work fine for platoon-level engagements. It doesn't work at all once you have to scale things up to Company or Battalion level, like you'd have to do with DCS.

[Grimes]

If you want to try it, make a mission that randomizes on startup between a huge amount of possible units - place 100 units randomly in a given area, have 10 of them spawn with randomization triggers, and see if the positions "make sense".

 

Then you will have 100 triggers setup just to spawn 10 groups, and if those groups mattered toward the mission you will need 100 more triggers or goals to determine when each group is killed. So for the sake of argument lets say you guys made a spawn trigger that takes a single group and randomly locates individual units within a zone. One would simply place a single group of 10 units, use a random spawn trigger, and have a trigger to check when the group is dead. The mission builder would end up with 198 less triggers and easily save about an hour fighting the inefficiency of randomness that currently exists within the DCS Mission Editor. Which would you prefer?

[EtherealN]

Grimes, you fail to see the point I was making, which is to use such a setup to see the "result" of the proposed mechanism. Not an alternative for practical use, just an illustration that the method would cause force dispositions that don't "make sense".

[hreich]

After paying 59.99 usd for DCS A-10C beta - i am back to free Falcon BMS...

 

Well, like it says in the title, I am back to flying Falcon BMS, but with nice addon from thrustmaster - TM warthog...

The main reason is lack of any sort of dynamic-like-campaign. After learning to tackle with all the systems, avionics and stuff, reading the manual, finishing the campaigns and a little of multiplayer flying, i am still left un-satisfied..Nothing cant replace dynamic campaign.

In new Falcon BMS there are a lot of improvements in avionics, flight model, graphic..

The team went so far, that they even implemented better effects during turbulence, buffeting on f-16 body (you can also noticed that some of the weapons are also buffeting on pylons!!).

The feeling of approaching the refuel tanker from behind is incredible...The refuel tanker leaves turbulent air behind its engines, so when you are lining for refuelling, your plane wobbles a lot..Amazing stuff..

 

I just felt that i need to share this, and this also can serve as plea to developers to try and implement some sort of dynamic campaign - maybe in the future they could even try to give the community opportunity to help them create a little fraction of Falcon campaign...

[EtherealN]

ED works iteratively. There is already a discussion about a DC in the Wish List - it's even a sticky. ;)

[kylania]

Thanks for your support of Thrustmaster and ED and happy flying!