Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

[Dafiew]

Imagine that you take the editor setup the airfields, forces and supply in place like you want and then hit start and watch the full scale war take shape! This would put CA into a very different category! I would buy it right away lol!

[sobek]

I understand that ED doesn't want to take the time/ effort etc. sinc ethat is not what they do. they make awesome flight models...

 

I don't think this is viable since ED have taken many steps that are needed for the realization of a dynamic campaign. They do want to and they certainly are more than capable, what is holding them back is the massive amount of work involved and the relative certainty that the additional return won't make up for the amount of work needed.

[outlawal2]

I don't think this is viable since ED have taken many steps that are needed for the realization of a dynamic campaign. They do want to and they certainly are more than capable, what is holding them back is the massive amount of work involved and the relative certainty that the additional return won't make up for the amount of work needed.

 

So you are saying that making some kind of dynamic campaign would take as much time, effort and man power as A-10 did? I will need somebody to explain why this would be the case. I just can't see it being that big a mountain to scale... (Not saying it would be easy, but it has been done and since EVERYTHING else is already being handled by ED and devs in regards to the planes, weapons etc. a developer could concentrate solely on coding the campaign) And as I said before, at $30 a pop they would make more money than they would on another plane since an all encompassing campaign would appeal to more people than one model of airplane would...

[Silver_Dragon]

The main problem has the expensive develop and cost to generate a dynamic campaign engine with "realistic" military control with troop deploy, a credible picture over battlefield, a accurate chain of command and the IA/system with can control them plus the players interaction over them (air / ground / sea).

[outlawal2]

The main problem has the expensive develop and cost to generate a dynamic campaign engine with "realistic" military control with troop deploy, a credible picture over battlefield, a accurate chain of command and the IA/system with can control them plus the players interaction over them (air / ground / sea).

 

And once again this would be more difficult from a coding perspective than the flight dynamics of a modern fighter plane along with all of the systems, weapons systems, etc? Still not seeing it..

[sobek]

And once again this would be more difficult from a coding perspective than the flight dynamics of a modern fighter plane along with all of the systems, weapons systems, etc? Still not seeing it..

 

If you don't believe me, maybe you should believe the guy who coded Falcons campaign engine. The article should still be floating around somewhere, unfortunately the place that i used to find it has closed down.

[Eddie]

And once again this would be more difficult from a coding perspective than the flight dynamics of a modern fighter plane along with all of the systems, weapons systems, etc? Still not seeing it..

 

There is a reason nobody has done it since Falcon, and it isn't because nobody wanted to.

[NineLine]

There is a reason nobody has done it since Falcon, and it isn't because nobody wanted to.

 

There is a reason nobody has done it THAT WAY since Falcon...

 

I think we are closer than people realize here, I mean really, we arent missing too much more than the ability to either save active missions, or export mission data to be opened in the next mission (unit locations, resources, ect)

 

Obviously its not quite that simple as that... but I think we are going in the right direction...

[outlawal2]

There is a reason nobody has done it since Falcon, and it isn't because nobody wanted to.

 

The reason is that they were also buried knee-deep in coding the airplanes as well... So yes, if you are going to do EVERYTHING, then the dynamic campaign may not make monetary sense as you need to have a GAME to play before you have a campaign for it... ED already has the game and excellent warplanes and equipment, systems and weapons. They excel at this piece..

 

NOW, someone can take the campaign portion and run with it.. Exclusively..

 

And the Falcon campaign system may or may not be the way to go, but as far as I know it isn't copyrighted either, so someone could certainly take a long look at it and cut through a lot of the issues that have already been worked out...

[sobek]

And the Falcon campaign system may or may not be the way to go, but as far as I know it isn't copyrighted either

 

It is copyrighted.

[EtherealN]

outlawal2, your question was already responded to in my post as far as I can see?

 

Creating a dynamic campaign that faithfully represents a real war requires that we get what is normally the job of whole staffs of experienced and specially trained personnel into program code. That is not simple. Far from it. (And Falcon doesn't do it, from that perspective Falcon is "stupid".)

 

It's all a question of whether to have something that is dynamic just because it is dynamic (anyone can do that), or to have something that is dynamic in a way that adds value to the simulation.

[Nealius]

It is copyrighted.

 

That didn't keep the BMS team or the Free Falcon team or the Open Falcon team from doing anything to it :music_whistling:

 

I think one of the reasons is supply/demand. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of gamers out there are too ADD and want their instant gratification fix too much to be bothered with realistic sims and dynamic campaigns. From my point of view the DCS and Falcon communities are very small in comparison, and I think that's a result of today's ADD gamers.

[joey45]

There is a reason nobody has done it since Falcon, and it isn't because nobody wanted to.

 

I thought one of the reasons why Microprose went tits up is because the DC in Falcon broke the bank...

[EtherealN]

That didn't keep the BMS team or the Free Falcon team or the Open Falcon team from doing anything to it :music_whistling:

 

Source code. It leaked.

That stuff is in a legal limbo that very few of us would be well positioned to debate.

[sobek]

That didn't keep the BMS team or the Free Falcon team or the Open Falcon team from doing anything to it :music_whistling:

 

Free Falcon had some kind of agreement with Atari, maybe they sold their souls in the process or whatever, i'm pretty sure though that that agreement ended at capitalizing upon the software.

 

Open Falcon faced legal prosecution by the IP holders, if i'm not mistaken.

 

BMS still require you to hold an original copy of F4 (yeah i know this is easily circumvented, that is besides the point).

 

You see where this is going?

[Silver_Dragon]

And the Falcon campaign system may or may not be the way to go, but as far as I know it isn't copyrighted either, so someone could certainly take a long look at it and cut through a lot of the issues that have already been worked out...

 

Not only copyrighted, Atari put a banned under legal actions over all groups with use and mod the source code.

[Nealius]

...isn't Atari bankrupt now?

[NineLine]

Besides, I am sure ED is quite capable of coming up with its on DC rather than copy something from 1998 :)

[EtherealN]

...isn't Atari bankrupt now?

 

http://atari.com/

[Nealius]

Odd, I heard on the news they were filing for bankruptcy.

 

Anyway, I still think today's generation of ADD gamers equates to a lesser demand in high-fidelity sims and dynamic campaigns.

[NineLine]

Odd, I heard on the news they were filing for bankruptcy.

 

Anyway, I still think today's generation of ADD gamers equates to a lesser demand in high-fidelity sims and dynamic campaigns.

 

Doesn't always mean the company is done for...

[Silver_Dragon]

a company is going bankrupt, does not mean they no longer have legal rights effects of a product. On the contrary, the rights can be maintained by the owner for years and years, even taking them to the grave. As an example ..... janes combat simulator. They released some source code? No, instead, stayed ad eternum.

[jib]

I remember playing the dynamic campaign in Microsoft Combat flight simulator 3 at it was a total grind:( after the first few turns. Kill some ammo dumps, kill some boats, intercept fighters , rinse and repeat.

 

I never got into falcon BMS I laughed at the graphics of the ground models and the on rails feel of the flight dynamics and then quit and uninstalled.

 

I prefer some well planned and balanced missions with some good story and a few different ways to tackle the situation for replayability.

[EtherealN]

Odd, I heard on the news they were filing for bankruptcy.

 

Anyway, I still think today's generation of ADD gamers equates to a lesser demand in high-fidelity sims and dynamic campaigns.

 

Their ameerican subsidiary did.

 

The global company (based in France) remains.

[Nealius]

 

I never got into falcon BMS I laughed at the graphics of the ground models and the on rails feel of the flight dynamics and then quit and uninstalled.

 

BMS does have horrible graphics compared to DCS, but the flight model most certainly is not on rails--the other iterations of Falcon 4 were. It is just as fluid and realistic as the A-10's in DCS. The big difference is that the F-16 has an FLCS (fly-by-wire) system while the A-10 does not, and the real FLCS is directly coded into the sim. It's just not as noticeable due to how the FLCS works. In the A-10 if you turn without kicking the rudder you will almost immediately notice adverse yaw (at least I do, I have no rudder pedals). In the F-16 the FLCS automatically adds rudder so the pilot doesn't have to and you will not see any adverse yaw. Handling at slow speeds in a knife fight is where the flight dynamics really come out.