Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

[HerrKaputt]

Well the dynamic campaign in Falcon 4.0 is a lot more complex than that and is arguably what broke the back of the game and Microprose. There's the added layer of the "2D-world" (a simplified/aggregated simulation of the battle) and the seamless blending of the two (the "player bubble"), AI theater commander, aswell as other stuff as supply and morale simulation.

 

I guess Eagle Dynamics are being very conservative about this because they don't want to drain their resources. Given that they are using kickstarter to fund the development of some new aircraft, why not use crowdfunding to fund a dynamic campaign module? If it fails they can just return the money.

[sgibson]

I would rather pitch in money for a Dynamic Campaign Kickstarter than for another aircraft.

 

As discussed in many parts of this thread - it doesn't have to be perfect but just enough to provide the immersion of that stuff is going on and actions make a difference.

[Teknetinium]

Multiplayer Dynamic campaign is what we need. A great start would be if we had a option to save the mission where it ended. The biggest time killer when running a dynamic campaign in DCS is to replace the units at their new positions and delete killed units.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Teknetinium

[HerrKaputt]

Well, I'd prefer single-player, but it doesn't really matter. The code-base is largely the same: you need a separate process that keeps track of the world, moves units around, generates missions, etc. Definitely not easy. But also definitely a huge value added to DCS. In my case, with a dynamic campaign, I'd buy most modules (definitely Black Shark, A10C, P51, perhaps others).

 

Without it, I picked up DCS A10C from the bargain bin at a retail store for 8 euros. I won't pay much more than that for a game/sim with no replayability. Apparently many others are willing to shell the full 40€ per module even without the replayability, and ED caters to them, fair enough... :)

[Cali]

I agree with you Tek, that's one thing I love about BMS.

[sgibson]

Especially if you take into account that ED is going also torwards casual gamers it doesn't make sense to confront them with a simple mission generator.

 

At least Belsimtek added a nicely scripted campaign.

[jbrking]

a dynamic campaign similar to f4 or even ef2000 would be fantastic.. trying to make a realistic mission template atm and its quite hard to find the room for 225 x su-27's spread across the 12 russian airfields represented in the black sea region.

[jbrking]

I would rather pitch in money for a Dynamic Campaign Kickstarter than for another aircraft.

 

As discussed in many parts of this thread - it doesn't have to be perfect but just enough to provide the immersion of that stuff is going on and actions make a difference.

 

^^^^:thumbup:

[gavagai]

a dynamic campaign similar to f4 or even ef2000 would be fantastic..

 

To be clear, Falcon 4 does not have a "dynamic campaign." It simulates a full-scale 24/7 war.

 

A dynamic campaign is where one mission influences the next, and structures that were destroyed might remain destroyed for a set time, but there is no persistent world linking them together.

 

Some people love the Falcon 4 campaign system, and others dislike it. It has a steep learning curve, and many never discover that every squadron has its own roster complete with pilot profiles, so you'll see comments to the effect that the campaigns are hollow or shallow.

[NineLine]

a dynamic campaign similar to f4 or even ef2000 would be fantastic.. trying to make a realistic mission template atm and its quite hard to find the room for 225 x su-27's spread across the 12 russian airfields represented in the black sea region.

 

I think we will eventual see something better... specially now that they have shaken the shackles of 32bit... you can see hints of it, but they have a lot on their plate right now... I'm excited to see what comes after EDGE and such...

[kontiuka]

I think we will eventual see something better... specially now that they have shaken the shackles of 32bit... you can see hints of it, but they have a lot on their plate right now... I'm excited to see what comes after EDGE and such...

It seems like such a low priority right now. EDGE will come out and they'll have to work out the kinks with that. Then there's the multiplayer stability issue. And the new modules. And updating older modules. And all the existing bugs. Etc.

[NineLine]

It seems like such a low priority right now. EDGE will come out and they'll have to work out the kinks with that. Then there's the multiplayer stability issue. And the new modules. And updating older modules. And all the existing bugs. Etc.

 

 

I cant speak about their priorities... so I really dont know. All I know is we see additions here and there... and I think as the core of the game changes it will allow for other things (it seems 32bit was a real road block)... but as I said in another post its hard to see the light through the smoke... but I think we will get there.

[coolts]

I wonder if the guy who did the F4 campaign engine is looking for work.

 

I used to love dropping into squadrons and cherry picking missions, as well as taking advantage of areas cleared of AA in earlier missions to frag strikes.

 

Once ED get ground radar working they will have one less excuse ;)......

[winchesterdelta1]

We’ve played with dynamic campaigns. These offer nearly unlimited replay value in theory, but in reality begin to feel generic and empty rather quickly. Dynamic campaigns are also a lot more difficult and expensive to create.

 

I dont know who said this. But i think this is a totally untrue statement. Maybe its his personal opinion or somehting, but i know alot of flight simmers that actually never get bored off dynamic campaigns. And that is because in most simm's with dynamic campaigns you can give yourself your own tasks and can even manage the battlefield a little or play AWACS.

This is the same reason why i like the game mode WARFARE in ARMA 3. You can just go after the towns. Or you can make up your own mission and go do some recon, ambushing other players or set up Air defenses and static AT launchers to defend a area.

This freedom and replayability makes DC's like this attractive, including that a DC makes things feel allive around you and makes you a small part of the bigger picture.

 

For me the normal missions feel generic after i played 2 of them especially the single player one. Even when some missions have a little dynamic progress in there. But in those missions you will never see a SCRAMBLE because the AI suddenly decided to do a Airfield Denial because a full strike flight including Wild Weasels and Escorts have been dispatched to destroy your airbase (Total Air War).

Me and a substantial simm player base have been playing DC for years and years. So i'm not sure where that generic feeling is comming from.

Edited October 28, 2013 by winchesterdelta1

[Home Fries]

It all depends on the campaign engine, and also in a large degree to the flyable aircraft.

 

For example, the dynamic campaign for Strike Fighters 2: North Atlantic (featuring the F-14A) will likely generate lots of fighter sweeps over the ocean/nearby Iceland, where you are tasked with hitting bombers and returning to the boat. That gets repetitive due to the engine (actually a dynamic mission generator more than a fully dynamic campaign) as well as the role of the F-14A as an interceptor.

 

Compare that with Falcon 4.0, where the campaign is running in real-time, and the F-16 is a multi-role aircraft. You can choose CAP, Sweep, CAS, SEAD, Strike, etc; whatever floats your boat. Also, the campaign engine is so good it models an entire war in real-time (as opposed to randomly generating a mission), and when you get airborne you can actually hear the radio calls from the other flights that are up, and you can see ground engagements going on as you pass over them. From the radios, you can actually get a decent enough picture of what's going on in the air.

 

I don't think we'll ever see another Falcon 4.0 campaign engine, as it took so long to build and was still buggy at release (lots of complexities and permutations; a tester's nightmare), but the point is that not all dynamic campaigns are equal.

 

Now I think DCS is close. The ME allows for long and complex missions that rival the Tactical Engagements of Falcon 4.0 (which can be mini-campaigns of their own), and the multitude of aircraft means that people can jump into available aircraft and choose their desired mission (A-10A/C for CAS, F-15C for sweep/CAP, Su-25T for SEAD, etc.).

 

I'm hoping that my previous statement about never seeing another engine like Falcon 4.0 is wrong, and ED is the team that can make it happen. It won't happen overnight (and it should be gradually introduced to keep the revenue stream open), but I'll gladly accept the long term approach for this.

[coolts]

I don't think we'll ever see another Falcon 4.0 campaign engine, as it took so long to build and was still buggy at release (lots of complexities and permutations; a tester's nightmare), but the point is that not all dynamic campaigns are equal.

 

I don't see why we cant do better, never mind match it. Its not like we are ancient Britons, scratching our beards in awe at the ruins of a Roman aqueduct wondering how they got water to run uphill.

 

The F4.0 campaign engine was programmed on PC's that has less computing power than most peoples phones after all.

 

The fact that it had only 1 year of patches before being killed off left it open to criticism. Compare that to the years of patching & development other franchises get, (DCS, ROF, etc).

[HerrKaputt]

I don't think we'll ever see another Falcon 4.0 campaign engine, as it took so long to build and was still buggy at release (lots of complexities and permutations; a tester's nightmare), but the point is that not all dynamic campaigns are equal.

 

Now I think DCS is close. The ME allows for long and complex missions that rival the Tactical Engagements of Falcon 4.0 (which can be mini-campaigns of their own), and the multitude of aircraft means that people can jump into available aircraft and choose their desired mission (A-10A/C for CAS, F-15C for sweep/CAP, Su-25T for SEAD, etc.).

 

I'm hoping that my previous statement about never seeing another engine like Falcon 4.0 is wrong, and ED is the team that can make it happen. It won't happen overnight (and it should be gradually introduced to keep the revenue stream open), but I'll gladly accept the long term approach for this.

 

I agree with everything but the bolded part, and now I speak from experience (I bought A10C from the bargain bin a while ago). DCS is not close to a DC like Falcon 4 or EECH, not by a long shot. It might be close to something like Gunship 2000 (where if you won a mission you'd progress forward into enemy lines, and if you lost you'd progress backward).

[Home Fries]

I agree with everything but the bolded part, and now I speak from experience (I bought A10C from the bargain bin a while ago). DCS is not close to a DC like Falcon 4 or EECH, not by a long shot. It might be close to something like Gunship 2000 (where if you won a mission you'd progress forward into enemy lines, and if you lost you'd progress backward).

Just to clarify, I'm not speaking about the existing campaigns that come with the game, or even the Campaign Editor that strings missions together.

 

I refer to the capabilities of the mission editor that rival the TE capability of Falcon 4.0. Some of the missions out there use dynamic events to trigger tasking, and the resource manager allows for a force on force matchup with a definite conclusion. For a DC, it's a matter of when, and it's a matter of scale.

[MGonzales]

a dynamic campaign similar to f4 or even ef2000 would be fantastic.. trying to make a realistic mission template atm and its quite hard to find the room for 225 x su-27's spread across the 12 russian airfields represented in the black sea region.

 

I've monitored this thread for a long time and you're not the first to mention EF2000 and in the way you put it, "...or even ef2000...". Usually the request goes something like, "...at least ef2000...", referring I guess to having at least minimal requirements for still being considered a DC.

 

I've read different opinions as to what exactly defines a true DC. Obviously a persistent world is required, as well as missions generated to reflect the current state of the world.

 

My own opinion (or preference) is that a DC should allow you to observe the playing out of an entire campaign without you ever participating. As with F4, EF2000 allows you to do this, to watch in fast-forward 2D action the activity of every minute of the clock, spanning for days, moving icons of planes and ships fulfilling their missions over a wide area (4m sq. km in this case). Of course F4 is several levels higher in features (full ground war) and detail (morale).

 

A very low-res video of EF2000's DC in action (after targeting recon)...

http://198.65.10.229/DID/Temp/EF2K_DCA.wmv

 

And the files generated and constantly updated by the campaign...

http://198.65.10.229/DID/Temp/campaign.cg.txt

http://198.65.10.229/DID/Temp/mission.cfg.txt

http://198.65.10.229/DID/Temp/sum0.txt

 

Regardless that EF2000 is DOS-based dating back to the mid-'90s, there still has to be a heck of a lot of code to generate those files of world persistence and numerous missions (air, sea and limited land). Hardware muscle may have increased exponentially since '95 but code still has to written, even more so today for the same features supporting current standards and level of detail.

 

I'm in the initial stages of developing a program in VB6 to import and display all the information in those campaign files on a map...

 

 

Slow going for now, I've used VB6 for years but never for graphics, a zoom-able pan-able picture box has been quite a new challenge for me. I just can't wait to see what all is there because the game's DC feedback (what they decided you need to know) is very limited, and there's a lot more to those files.

[NineLine]

Please keep the discussion civil and respectful. Thanks guys!

[WRAITH]

Its Time for DCS Series to own the " ( SP ) Theater Dynamic Campaign Trademark"!

 

Hi,First I will say “My Wallet is Wide Open” if a DCS Theater sold for say $25.00 or $50.00 or even $100 to begin with it would be fair and I would say the same for enthusiasts that appreciate the tradition of Falcon 4.0 Dynamic Campaign Engine primarily in Single- Player and able to be played in LANS and Multi-Player scenarios in Squadrons or some kind of operational 24/7 server (DCS WORLD etc).

 

Well I have spent some time reading this thread again and also spent time reading this other thread http://forums.eagle.ru

/showthread.php?t=109642 …. Fantastic yes please.

 

And I also have recently learnt that there will be a F-18C and E variant by Cortex Designs.

 

This would be what most have been desiring in various combat sim Forums for a long time now.

 

The guys I fly with and as an individual single player prefer SU-33’s and a F-18 variant for Carrier Ops fully clickable functioning cockpits.

 

Then just add a F-16C Block 50/52 USAF variant and allow for modifications thru community input for other variants to be created over time.

 

Olé little me enjoys greatly the Falcon 4.0 experience of Single Player Dynamic Campaign this Link might encourage the thought and inspiration http://www.lead-pursuit.com/downloads/understanding_the_campaign.pdf

 

Now with the sad : ( end to FreeFalcon Single-Player Dynamic Campaigns which will be even more so treasured and envied or desired in the DCS Series that’s a given now.

 

So I would say this thread is going to get longer as time goes by its at 900 replies and growing.

 

Pfft if that ain't indication of where the $$$$$'s really are for DCS management! :doh: I cant further insist hard enough that Theaters of WAR with Dynamic Campaigns is absolutely necessary for DCS Future Potential as WAR Air Combat Simulator! :pilotfly::joystick:

 

This would be the cry of all Combat Flight Simmers remember its about “AERIAL WARFARE”! :smilewink:

 

Maybe better to develop a round global scenery map like XPlane or FSX. With a new improved GUI for DCS and you select a Theater or Nation and a WAR scenario either historical or fictional.

 

I also like the idea of A.i improvements utilizing modern terrain 3D content as tactical and strategic advantages and feature graphical pleasure.

 

Also being able to fly in a A.i squadron with other air craft ie. Bombers and Fighters in a support mission for example.

 

Single Player is important skills and rank that you build and learn in your own time that will further build a pilot into War Campaign or multi-player scenarios not forgetting squadrons.

 

Proper A.i training a play as you learn as a conceptual method of development should also be incorporated and developed further through A.i training from a cadet pilot to a rank commissioned pilot similar to the Falcon training missions but more A.i involved with a RIO and WSO would be the treats i would be looking for.

 

Look honestly maybe time for a merger of Flight Simulator Developers to come together and get it done building it block by block.

 

Maybe contact these guys via the links……

 

https://github.com/FreeFalcon

http://seveng-f18.com/

http://tactical.nekromantix.com/arma2/pmc_somalia.php/f4/index.php

http://www.prepar3d.com/

http://www.x-plane.com/desktop/home/

 

............etcetra

 

Dont know just thought to inspire and encourage the idea, because in my own head-space I really cant comprehend individual attempts to recreate what Microprose accomplished with Falcon 4.0 or the Janes Series whats the point just merge and build the darn monster of a air combat sim, Final! Just way to many attempts and yet failing to deliver, so why not just merge and see it at that to successfully accomplish the task, Final!

 

Allied Falcon and FreeFalcon had some really nice Theaters to offer its time for this to happen with the DCS Series because Falcon 4.0 is dying to many splits in development and the lost art of creating Single Player Theaters has almost brought Falcon to a halt sadly.

 

Its really up to DCS to pick up the pieces and own the “Dynamic Campaign Trade Name” and “Finally Keep It in the DCS Series for Ever”!

 

Theater List ………………….. http://tactical.nekromantix.com/arma2/pmc_somalia.php/f4/theaters.php

 

How To's....................... http://tactical.nekromantix.com/wiki/doku.php?id=falcon4:campaign

 

"So Lets Do It, Already!"

 

Mission Editors and Tactical Engagement Builders are great for creating your own tactical environment but a Theater of WAR based on a Dynamic Campaign is exactly what real life military personnel plan and deliver with strategic planning utilizing assets and combat pilots. To say that in a home based simulator a Mission Editor or Tactical Engagement Builder is sufficient is not to fully grasp what we are here for in a Air Combat Flight Simulator. I would say with modern gaming becoming the norm in most house hold’s with new tech, DCS not incorporating Dynamic Campaigns would be at a miss and not aligned with what users desire in a aerial combat sim. So if it requires more funding and more code work to be written then lets start moving.

 

Lets not allow Single Player Theater Dynamic Campaigns to just die. Please, I personally don’t favor multi-player junkie sims but more the treats you can get in a game categorized as a “Air Combat Study Simulator”!Like the game of Chess its popularity and even its game strategy concept is still as good as its day of conception and adopted by the masses throught the decaded even adopted by military strategistist. The whole online squadron approach is great when you have freedom of time to follow full length mission trips here’s where the niche of Single Player Theaters of War with Dynamic Campaigns really hits the mark. Its there when you want it in your own allocated time and dive into the Study of War Theory Strategems and Doctrine, to deny this is not really to understand the very foundation of what is Defense Forces around the world and WAR itself. To further assist the direction of Single Player Theaters and Dynamic Campaigns some people might want to look into "The Art of War - Sun Tzu"................. http://www.puppetpress.com/classics/ArtofWarbySunTzu.pdf

 

Still heavily used till today, it never fails.............. Watch............. http://www.mediafire.com/view/p72kwkp62ld2lwc/The%20Art%20of%20War%20Sun%20Tsu%20Full%20Documentary.%20(Educational)..mp4

 

*** "Falcon 4.0 Single Player Theaters with Dynamic Campaigns will forever remain the Golden Lampstand by which all Combat Flight Simulators will judged by"! ***

 

Thats been said by all in the know!

 

So, time has come for DCS Series to own the Theater Dynamic Campaign Development Trademark, to start at least!

 

Its Desperately Needed! ***

Edited November 29, 2013 by WRAITH

[gavagai]

I don't see why we cant do better, never mind match it. Its not like we are ancient Britons, scratching our beards in awe at the ruins of a Roman aqueduct wondering how they got water to run uphill.

 

The F4.0 campaign engine was programmed on PC's that has less computing power than most peoples phones after all.

 

Agree 100%. F4 has the best campaign of any flight sim. It's not so much that it's a great single player experience (it is), but that you can move so seamlessly between a single player campaign and cooperative play. The 24:7 war idea is great, too.

 

I would definitely buy a campaign experience like that for DCS if it were available.

[Silver_Dragon]

Why not let ED decides he wants to do in DCS: W in the concept of "dynamic campaign" before being continuously giving examples of other products or imposing past "canons"?.

 

Honestly, the discussion has become empty and sterile. You do not talk about doing something to move the aim to make a dynamic campaign (eg implement something with Scripts, Mist or C + +) but this is to become a war of what and how must pull, basing on past events .

 

I repeat, anything constructive to talk about? O any progress you're making someone?

[gavagai]

It is just a conversation Silver Dragon, and we all have different opinions and like to share them.:smilewink:

[HerrKaputt]

Why not let ED decides he wants to do in DCS: W in the concept of "dynamic campaign" before being continuously giving examples of other products or imposing past "canons"?.

 

Honestly, the discussion has become empty and sterile. You do not talk about doing something to move the aim to make a dynamic campaign (eg implement something with Scripts, Mist or C + +) but this is to become a war of what and how must pull, basing on past events .

 

I repeat, anything constructive to talk about? O any progress you're making someone?

 

No need to be so defensive. So far no-one has been aggressive to ED regarding the lack of a dynamic campaign, we're just voicing our opinion that a DC would dramatically increase the value of ED's products to us.