Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

[wilbur81]

Sorry, Sith, but I'm with the Peanut Gallery on this one.

 

Far from being RTS lite, Falcon's dynamic campaign is the most immersive combat flight sim experience ever. That is not hyperbole; as much as I love DCS, Falcon 4.0 is the only sim that has actually given me flashbacks of operational flying. While many elements are duplicated in DCS (e.g. pilot comms, coordinated strikes, etc.), the fact that the Falcon engine does the entire war makes the sheer scale of the battlefield and quantity/diversity of units more intense than even the most dedicated DCS mission builder is going to be able to create.

 

The idea that you can play general and control the air war is more icing on the cake than core functionality (and in fact it wasn't even core functionality), though it does keep the same campaign from getting stale and also allows a manual bypass if the AI logic gets stuck in flawed thinking. However, controlling the big picture is strictly optional and the campaign engine works just fine without human intervention.

 

Just think about this: since Falcon 4.0 was released in 1998, AFAIK only one additional theater has been released with a fully fleshed-out campaign that you can win (most 3rd party theaters out there are just theaters with campaign frameworks or buggy campaigns). Basically, most Falcon 4.0 users have been flying the same Korea theater for the past 17 years, and yet they keep coming back to that dynamic campaign engine.

 

I second Homefrie! :thumbup:

[hannibal]

constructive discussion right?

 

i hope future DCS will allow players to get their fill of dynamic campaign like BMS, flight plans / scenery-esque flight like FSX, carrier ops like ???, heli combat like Janes Longbow, and of course continue with their heritage of combat sim in hi def..

[Endy]

Basically, most Falcon 4.0 users have been flying the same Korea theater for the past 17 years, and yet they keep coming back to that dynamic campaign engine.

 

Moreover, many of these people will not touch DCS or other sims because they're not a complete experience in their opinion without the Dynamic Campaign, aka a simulated war which you can easily take part in in a meaningful way whether single or mutliplayer.

 

Now, that may be a minority of players used to that type of gameplay, but that kind of goes to show how faithful people can be to a game that gives them this type of experience. I guess many, if not the majority, of DCS players would fall in love instantly with this feature if it was available in DCS and that would even increase their love of the game, willingness to buy new modules etc.

 

The best thing is, as mentioned before in this thread, that this feature is EQUALLY aimed towards single and multiplayer and makes both modes that much more easy to fly and have fun with. It's also good because you don't create a feature for one type of player only but rather something that everyone is going to benefit from, which is much more cost effective.

[NineLine]

Problem with comparing other games is they are not DCS World, you want this Dynamic Engine, but now its not only got to work with all the different eras and types of modules, but its also got to work with new modules coming out... new objects, new maps. etc etc...

 

I just dont see them building something like that for DCS, the creation would be monumental... the upkeep even worse.

 

I want to see more Dynamic content, but I am happy with a simulation of the battle around me, I dont need total control over every aspect of a complete war zone.

 

This is just my opinion of course...

[Endy]

The DC engine handles different equipment (or eras if you prefer). So for example in BMS you have an 80s theater and you can have a more modern one no problem. The AI has some different units and ammo etc. under its control depending on the scenario/theater, simple as that. You add a new plane then you just give the AI ability to use it IF that scenario / theater allows for that plane. So adding new equipment / modules to theaters should be relatively painless and modders are doing it in BMS. Sure, it does take some work to prepare, but it could be handled by mission makers to set up campaigns, units AI can use, ammo, equipment etc, virtually what they are doing now in DCS mission editor, just on a different scale, but also via different, easier methods.

 

As for creating DC data for new maps, same thing, modders have been doing that for Falcon so it should be even easier for profesional devs in DCS. Anyway, this was possible almost 20 years ago so it should not be undoable nowadays.

 

Also, players don't need total control over every aspect, that's what is handled by the DC engine exactly. The AI plays its own war based on initial conditions set by the game (can be modified) and then it just rolls with it. And you, as a player, are just a small cog in the whole war machine, but can also be a significant one.

 

Sadly, seeing your pesimism somehow makes me think you know something we don't. Perhaps the feature's been discussed internally by ED and already discarded as an idea... And now you're just trying to discourage us from even thinking about this as a real possibility which is really sad, at least for me... No offence but I get that impression (I can be totally wrong of course) from your general attitude, please don't get me wrong.

 

DCS is a good game, but could be even better after the introduction of a DC engine. Sadly, while it's probably doable, and could even bring a return on investment, especially in the increased longevity of the game, it may not be seen as the best use of assets right here and right now from a business perspective. It's probably more beneficial for the company to just pump another plane or map to the players.

 

ED would first need to see the long term benefits of creating something like this for their game but it's difficult to foresee how they react to that... Like I said, seeing your reaction Sithspawn makes me worried that this has been already discussed (rather improbable that it hasn't at some point) and already discarded as too risky / too long term / ROI not high enough in the short term so the only thing we can do is discuss it here and keep dreaming.

 

As you see, this thread has over 100 pages now, alive since 2010/11, perhaps not that great considering the time period but it does give an insight on the subject. There was also a poll on these very forums where DC scored very highly, and sure, a forum poll may not be the best way to judge an idea but that's just one of the few indicators what players want (and I would argue most players would love this feature just like they do in BMS) so maybe it will be reconsidered at some point. Question is, what ED want for their game and how they see it from the business perspective.

[NineLine]

You cant really use BMS as an example, its no where near as complex under the hood as DCS World, you cant fly or drive as many of the vehicles and aircraft as you can in DCS World, and on and on. Not to mention, this forum is for DCS World, discussing how an old game did it really is not relevant. (Yes, I have BMS, yes I know whats going on there, but again, DCS World forums)

 

As for determining what ED is doing by my opinion, well that is pretty futile. I am a volunteer and customer, this is all my opinion. Maybe ED knowns how to pull off a complex battle ground simulation (land sea and air) that would handle not only all the AI calculations but as well being able to have large multiplayer groups controlling parts of it... sometimes 2 guys, sometimes 30 guys... and all the other complexity of making some crazy Dynamic super game, then I will be very happy to play it. I just dont see, personally, how that would all come together.

 

I am only sharing what I want to see in a dynamic campaign system for ED, and I just want the bridge I took out in Mission 1 to be blowed up in Mission 2. Or if I played it again, and I didnt get the bridge, I might suffer for it later or be tasked with it again, etc.

 

But I wont chat in this thread anymore, I am not a decision maker at ED. I have my own opinion on what I think a DC means for DCS World, thats it.

 

The DC engine handles different equipment (or eras if you prefer). So for example in BMS you have an 80s theater and you can have a more modern one no problem. The AI has some different units and ammo etc. under its control depending on the scenario/theater, simple as that. You add a new plane then you just give the AI ability to use it IF that scenario / theater allows for that plane. So adding new equipment / modules to theaters should be relatively painless and modders are doing it in BMS. Sure, it does take some work to prepare, but it could be handled by mission makers to set up campaigns, units AI can use, ammo, equipment etc, virtually what they are doing now in DCS mission editor, just on a different scale, but also via different, easier methods.

 

As for creating DC data for new maps, same thing, modders have been doing that for Falcon so it should be even easier for profesional devs in DCS. Anyway, this was possible almost 20 years ago so it should not be undoable nowadays.

 

Also, players don't need total control over every aspect, that's what is handled by the DC engine exactly. The AI plays its own war based on initial conditions set by the game (can be modified) and then it just rolls with it. And you, as a player, are just a small cog in the whole war machine, but can also be a significant one.

 

Sadly, seeing your pesimism somehow makes me think you know something we don't. Perhaps the feature's been discussed internally by ED and already discarded as an idea... And now you're just trying to discourage us from even thinking about this as a real possibility which is really sad, at least for me... No offence but I get that impression (I can be totally wrong of course) from your general attitude, please don't get me wrong.

 

DCS is a good game, but could be even better after the introduction of a DC engine. Sadly, while it's probably doable, and could even bring a return on investment, especially in the increased longevity of the game, it may not be seen as the best use of assets right here and right now from a business perspective. It's probably more beneficial for the company to just pump another plane or map to the players.

 

ED would first need to see the long term benefits of creating something like this for their game but it's difficult to foresee how they react to that... Like I said, seeing your reaction Sithspawn makes me worried that this has been already discussed (rather improbable that it hasn't at some point) and already discarded as too risky / too long term / ROI not high enough in the short term so the only thing we can do is discuss it here and keep dreaming.

 

As you see, this thread has over 100 pages now, alive since 2010/11, perhaps not that great considering the time period but it does give an insight on the subject. There was also a poll on these very forums where DC scored very highly, and sure, a forum poll may not be the best way to judge an idea but that's just one of the few indicators what players want (and I would argue most players would love this feature just like they do in BMS) so maybe it will be reconsidered at some point. Question is, what ED want for their game and how they see it from the business perspective.

[Home Fries]

On another note, I understand ED's reluctance to enter this arena. Given their business model and our current hardware, a F4 style DC isn't currently feasible.

 

I can't remember where, but I remember reading an interview with one of the Microprose coders on the F4 DC. He said that if they knew how difficult it would be, they would never have done it. It also took them 5 1/2 years to develop Falcon 4.0, and it was an unplayable mess upon release. It wasn't until the SuperPaks that Falcon 4.0 really hit its stride, two years after Microprose closed its doors.

 

While Falcon 4.0 and its development cycle was most likely the downfall of Microprose, it may have also effectively killed the combat flight sim market by setting the bar so high. Before Falcon 4.0, we had a Renaissance with Janes sims, DID (F-22), Enemy Engaged, Flanker 2 (cough, cough), etc. After that, it was really only ED in the modern jet game with Lock On, and Black Shark 1 was the first sim in a decade to model an aircraft with a fidelity that approached Falcon 4.0.

 

Also, the only way that the Falcon 4.0 campaign engine could work in real time on the Pentium III was with the bubble system, which aggregated individual units based on proximity to the player aircraft, and de-aggregated them when they left the "bubble" around the player aircraft. Any units within the bubble would receive full combat modeling, and units outside of the player bubble would have their fates calculated abstractly (like a table top wargame). ED has already specified that DCS will not go to a bubble system, and given their military clientele this is completely understandable.

 

So right now, we have a robust mission editor, high fidelity flight and damage modeling for all units within the scenario, and large scenarios that will cripple current PCs even before modeling a full operational theater. We can either wait for hardware to catch up, or we can accept that if there will be a dynamic campaign for DCS it will differ from Falcon 4.0.

TLDR, Here's what I'm thinking:

A dynamic mission generator is a step below Falcon 4.0, but it is nevertheless a step in the right direction. If a real-time campaign engine is infeasible, then I'll gladly take a mission generator. Other parts of the campaign away from the generated mission could be calculated abstractly without compromising the ED engine with a bubble system, and as hardware improves the missions generated can become more complex and include more aircraft to take advantage of technology.

 

EDIT: a good operating model might be the EF2000 dynamic campaign, which broke the periods up into 8 hour blocks. The entire air war would be planned for the next 8 hours, and you would choose which mission to fly within that 8 hour block. Events before and after the mission would be abstracted. For DCS, this would allow you to choose which mission or missions (multiplayer) to fly based on what modules are owned and where you want your effort to go in influencing the war.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Home Fries

[Endy]

You cant really use BMS as an example, its no where near as complex under the hood as DCS World, you cant fly or drive as many of the vehicles and aircraft as you can in DCS World, and on and on. Not to mention, this forum is for DCS World, discussing how an old game did it really is not relevant. (Yes, I have BMS, yes I know whats going on there, but again, DCS World forums)

 

Actually, we're not discussing BMS per se, but just comparing ideas and borrowing some of them for the dream feature (of some of us at least) that is a dynamic campaign in DCS World. Nobody's saying, "hey, that game is better" but rather, "hey, that game does it this way, can we try to have something similar here perhaps?". It's a simple feature request backed by a real life example, not comparing engines etc. And also, if the only argument for not using it as an example is a different engine etc, then you can't really compare any game to any other according to that way of thinking...

 

And yes, it's an old game, but one that is still wildly popular (in sim community terms at least, offline and online) until this day and actually still being developed by Benchmark sims, so it's still kind of valid.

 

Anyway, I'm in a similar position as you then, just a customer, wishing there was this and that feature in a game I like (DCS World) and to show exactly what my kind request is, I show the feature working in another game. Whether ED take note of it or nor is their thing, I won't blame them if they won't for example for business reasons.

 

But perhaps, if this thread is kept alive, and many people show their interest in the idea, then just perhaps someone will take note of it and maybe try to see if that's at all feasible, profitable etc. There is no other way to get ED's attention, or at least I don't know of any other, unless they have plans for it themselves. So far ED have been wonderfully responsive (it doesn't not mean they do everything according to player whims of course) for example in terms of flight model questions, so that gives me some hope that perhaps someone is reading threads like this too like Yo-Yo does the FM threads.

 

Now, one of the options in the poll posted by Wags was for a dynamic campaign, and I don't think it got there by accident. Perhaps they are at least remotely considering the possibility and checking player resposnse too, among other features as well. That's a long was till implementation, but if they see player interest in the thing, that might just (or not) give them a nudge that it's a good idea.

[NineLine]

Now, one of the options in the poll posted by Wags was for a dynamic campaign, and I don't think it got there by accident

 

Yes but Dynamic Campaign is a broad term. I gave my opinion on what I would like to have for a dynamic campaign.

[Endy]

Yes but Dynamic Campaign is a broad term. I gave my opinion on what I would like to have for a dynamic campaign.

 

Well, that's what the thread's for, to exchange ideas mostly :) We have no real idea (at least I don't) of what can technically be done in DCS World and what can't. Someone surely does or will do and just perhaps will start checking/implementing what's possible and what is not.

 

The new graphics engine proved that even huge changes are possible in the game so why not dream big eh? :)

[Weta43]

I'm sure this has been said over and over again in this thread, but isn't part of the problem that F4's 'bubble' generation allows most of that war to be generated statistically (dice rolled) against units that never actually exist in the 'SIM' part of the game. DCS has every unit that's being considered for an outcome actually spawned into the simulation & lets the AI fight it out..

 

Surely though, it's just a (non-trivial) step from what SiTHSpAwn about carrying forward all the impact of the actual mission that was just flown, to calculating all that stuff that's currently being done outside the 'bubble' in F4, then providing a briefing on the wider context and altering resources / dispositions in the next mission according to the results of that dice roll ?

If Blue did well in the mission that just finished - give them some 'advantage' in the general war calcs that set the next mission starting conditions.

[DocSigma]

Regardless of how it's implemented, a dynamic campaign fills a void I think DCS is lacking: a sense of continuity. A previous poster astutely pointed out that there is a significant number of BMS supporters, in the current high fidelity world of DCS, that have an unwavering loyalty to BMS. I don't think the generation of a dynamic campaign should be at the top of ED's priority list, but it should be, for the sake of giving DCS world a real sense of continuity, at least in the top ten - it gives the sim a sense of purpose beyond learning all the clickable startup steps and the minutia behind every on-board avionics system.

[piXel496]

What are the benefits or limitations of a Dynamic campaign (for DCS)?

 

The current campaigns are a set of mission scenarios given several static situations with set goals to finish a mission succesful. Which has it advantages if you want to jump in or focus on specific tasks or specific scenarios. A dynamic campaign is a developing structure that is dependent on the actions taken by players. Simply said a complex single mission that can evolve with an unknown outcome. (could be made by the community)

 

A constructive question is, what makes a good dynamic campaign? For me it is:

- it should be muliplayer

- player actions must count for something, emersion

- replayability

- regular virtual news (in game) about the developing situation

- many roles to select from as a player

- player development (ranking)

- 24/7 scenario evolution

 

Limitations.

- consistent working script engine. (I have my hopes on this year)

- saving a situation when the scenario stops so it continues where it left. (export and log files of DCS are complete enough, database on the backend would be better then a text file but some people already do smart things. So this is not impossible)

- intelligent use of computational resources. Rendering all assets of a complete scenario of a campaign is impossible. Spawning and despawning could be a solution when a location is visited or left by a player, not something DCS likes to do without hickups.

- general complexity.(It is a lot of intelligent work to make a durable interesting scenario)

 

I like scripting maybe more then only flying. It's the creation of a vivid puzzle that works I enjoy. I like bugs and smart workarounds. But some limitations are not working in favor of a dynamic campaign. And the development of DCS is heading in so many directions that it seems dynamic by itself. Still I think that a dynamic campaign could be something of the future after all the new stuff we will get/got settles into stability.

 

When is a dynamic campaign enjoyable for you?

 

.

[StandingCow]

I actually think as ED fleshes out CA (they have an announcement coming out soon about this I believe) and DCS as a whole and we get more aircraft that we could have something better than an AI dynamic campaign through the DCS multiplayer experience. The single player guys would probably love a dynamic AI campaign, and it would be cool... but what can it do that multiplayer can't do better?

 

Just look at what the blueflag guys have put together. Having real people on both sides in different roles tops even the dynamic campaign of BMS imho. We just need ED to continue to improve on the scripting, etc.

Edited January 15, 2016 by StandingCow

[Endy]

Just look at what the blueflag guys have put together. Having real people on both sides in different roles tops even the dynamic campaign of BMS imho. We just need ED to continue to improve on the scripting, etc.

 

Yes and no. The diversity of planes/roles for now in DCS is better, that can't be argued with.

 

But the problem with campaigns like Blue Flag you mentioned is that they:

 

- require a lot of time to prepare - you can argue it's the same thing in all games BUT once you prepare a dynamic campaign you get something that can be run multiple times with different results, a whole virtual war lasting for several days (real time if you want), ofter with different outcomes, depending on AI and player actions. In DCS it takes a lot of time to prepare one MISSION and sure, that mission can be repeated but it's only a mission, not a whole campaign. You want a continuation of it then you need to spend lots of time again to prepare another one, testing and again and again. If you want that mission to last longer on the server, like for days, then you need to simplify it, like prepare a sort of tug of war scenario with scripted stuff etc. but again, complex to prepare and results are a bit artificial.

 

- with a dynamic campaign you could create your own missions within the theatre on the fly, whether single or multiplayer. In singleplayer, you can run the campaign, pause, enter at any point and fly a meaningful mission, either AI prepared or by yourself, it literally takes 2 minutes to choose objectives, flight plan, armament etc. And the situation is changing constantly according to how the AI wages its war and your actions too to some degree. This is impossible in DCS right now and would take a lot of work to prepare a mission that makes sense, hand place units / objectives, test etc.

 

In multiplayer, the biggest advantage is that you could enter a server, alone or with friends, look at the situation in the theater and simply frag a flight, whatever mission type, adjust flight plan as you wish, objectives, armament and all that. And again, the process is very quick and flexible. You want to fly with more friends? No problem, frag a flight for 8 people, splitting roles between SEAD, CAP and CAS for example, adjusting flight plans as needed for every group on the fly. Taking part in singular events in DCS is very cool of course, but that's a preset mission only, with preset flight plans etc. None of the flexibility that a DC allows and very little in terms of dynamics.

 

That's the main thing here, the ease of use for both single and multiplayer guys. DCS has currently a powerful mission editor but it's complicated, takes a lot of time, is slow to prepare new scenarios and is very inflexible once the mission is prepared. Sure, some of it can be mitigated by scripting, but that only makes time effort and ease of use worse. Look at how many people are compaining in DCS because it's difficult and time consuming to create new, meaningful content via the mission editor...

 

A DC in DCS World would allow for very fast mission creation (and in a way that makes sense in general environment) and a very flexible one too, both in single and multiplayer. In general, it would increase it's potential by orders of magnitude.

[QuiGon]

I'm dreaming about a Falcon-like DC for DCS since I started playing it and will keep dreaming about it. But given the current limitations of the DCS engine and the amount of work that a DCS-DC would need (e.g. bubble technology) I don't think it will happen in the near future, if at all.

So I'm happy about every step that brings us closer to a DC-experience. I'm especially thankful in this regard to the BlueFlag guys for providing such a unique MP-experience and MBot for his caucasus campaign and the Dynamic Campaign Engine he is currently working at.

Edited January 15, 2016 by QuiGon

[lanmancz]

Hello,

after reading the last few pages it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between DCS, as it's currently structured, and people's expectations of how DC should work. It seems to me that people generally expect a completely dynamic environment that manages the entire conflict with all assets on both sides in real-time, where you can see and control any unit, or create a flights of your own. While I agree that this would be totally awesome I also understand why this currently wouldn't work in DCS. However in my opinion it could actually be done in a more simplified way that would be feasible in DCS.

 

I would be happy if DC module was basically a glorified automatic mission generator. First a set of functions and GUI elements that would allow campaign designer to define assets, points of interrest and campaign goals for both sides into a "dynamic campaign package" (so there could be many custom DCs available). Next a player would then load this set of definitions (basically you could choose "Campaign A/B/C" that would have a different starting parameters like force ratio, available assets, even campaign goals and so on) into the DC engine and let it roll and generate new missions for him/her. The missions would be generated on "per flight" basis - ie. the menu interface could look and work similar to F4 where you'd see the conflict overview on a map (with some additional info about the current situation, perhaps even allow the player to take some strategic decisions) and you could let it roll and let time pass. This overview part would be calculated in a simplified/statistical way, no need to calculate every bullet in the menu overview. As time goes by you'd get some missions available for you to take and only once you select and commit to a mission the engine would generate "your slice of the war" for that particular mission (the actual MIZ file) ie. the mission generated for you will not encompass the whole map but just your AO + some long range threats, no need to generate every tank in every mission when the generated mission does not take place anywhere near it. There could be many types of missions that would be generated by the engine (CAP, CAS, SEAD, all kinds of ground strike missions and so on) depending of the current situation and the player could select any one of these based on modules that he/she owns. The engine would also take the outcome of previous missions into account so there is a continuity of progress between missions. So basically all the big warzone calculations would take place outside of the sim in the DC engine in a simplified way. The missions themselves then would be pretty much classic DCS missions. The only difference would be that they would be auto-generated and not hand made.

 

I know that this would probably not be the type of DC that people at large open MP servers would like to see as it could not run 24/7 but it seems to me like a good compromise, at least from my point of view when I spend 99% of my DCS time in single player so I wouldn't have a problem with slicing it up into "standalone" auto-generated missions. It could also work well for small MP teams of just couple of people where you stick together in a single flight anyway or your friend takes the lead of a neighboring flight so you all have the same "slice of war".

 

The thing is that the full blown real time dynamic campaign system as people dream about is probably not going to happen anyway (due to reasons already mentioned by others) so I'd say this would be a next best thing. It would still give us many benefits of the DC (dynamic missions, replayability, being a small cog in big machine experience and so on) while working around the limitations (HW requirements and complexity of detailed calculations of the whole war while flying since there is no "bubble" system in DCS). The main thing about this system would be to allow us to have large variety of missions (that would be naturally different every time) on our fingertips without having to spend countless hours in mission editor. You could still do that if you'd like to play hand made missions but it would give us an option skip that and concentrate on the flying. It would also give us a great sense of continuity and purpose to these missions as you'd know that if you do your job well (SEAD for example) and take out the SAM it will not bother you next time you fly a ground strike mission in the area. Also if you wreck your plane it will not be available for next missions and if you keep wrecking planes your side is probably going to loose :-) Best part is that it would not require a major redesign of the existing DCS as it would be an external extension of the existing mission based system. Single missions and campaigns as they are now would continue to work. One thing that would have to be added would be some feedback function that would report the state of the last mission back into the DC engine so it can pickup where you left the sim and continue from there like when a unit or a bridge or an airbase is destroyed in last mission it would be destroyed/not available in the following missions as well until repaired for example.

 

So this is how I imagine how dynamic campaign module could be added into DCS. Or perhaps I'm naively oversimplifying it, what do you think ?

 

PS: Sorry for hundred edits of this post, it's just when I read what I wrote I often later find a better way to express what I'm trying to say, I'm not a native English speaker :-)

Edited January 15, 2016 by lanmancz

[Home Fries]

<...>

 

PS: Sorry for hundred edits of this post, it's just when I read what I wrote I often later find a better way to express what I'm trying to say, I'm not a native English speaker :-)

No worries at all. You articulated a concept of operations for exactly what I was thinking in my last post, and your English is magnitudes better than my Czech! :thumbup:

[Silver_Dragon]

The main problem of the F-4 BMS bubble system has only centre on aircraft operations, make random all rest of the environment on a DC.

 

DCS: W in the future move to a Air / Land / Sea with pilot-able aircraft / helos / vehicles and ships. The main problem coming to.... If in the future "all" systems can get pilot-able features. What part of DCS: W need turn random to use a bubble environment?. The answers is only "you can´t".

 

If a player on a aircraft fire a weapon, that weapon need a realistic performance to make a propel use. The situation turn bad if you are a artillery commander on a Surface to Surface missile launcher vehicle firing a ballistic missile or ship commander fire a volley of cruise missiles. You put your weapons randomly only to travel outside of your bubble environment?

 

What happens with a CA commander under control of a mechanized battalion with AI and player pilot-able vehicles or a SAM unit commander player with see coming the previous SSM, cruise missile attack? make them randomly but are coming outside of the bubble?

Edited January 15, 2016 by Silver_Dragon

[lanmancz]

...

 

Sure, the F4 "bubble" system is not applicable to DCS so no full blown real time all encompassing DC is possible in DCS. That's why I think the DC mission autogen could be a method suitable for DCS as I tried to explain in my post. I wonder if that would be possible.

Edited January 15, 2016 by lanmancz

[Endy]

Sure, the F4 "bubble" system is not applicable to DCS so no full blown real time all encompassing DC is possible in DCS.

 

I'm wondering why you're so sure... There could multiple solutions similar to that;

 

- a spawn / despawn mechanism depending on range from the player or players - aka similar to bubble

 

- an abstract campaign engine on a kind of operations map and then when fragging a flight you would first choose the operations area, just a part of the map where detailed and real units would be spawned based on what was going on in the abstract campaign engine. That is obviously better for spawning single missions rather than a 24/7 war, but still. It could work for online scheduled events, with players flying a mission, then you run the DC engine some more, advance time etc. and spawn another mission / AO for a multiplayer event. Same for singleplayer.

 

So there you go, at least two possibilities for a kind of "full blown ral time all encompassing DC in DCS" OF SORTS is quite possible but of course it would need to be done DIFFERENTLY than in F4. And yes, that would require writing a lot of code, same as a new graphics engine did but you saw that it is quite possible.

 

So that could be a mix between your idea of mission generator but on a larger scale. In other words, you have a general, simplified simulation of the theatre of operations which would then spawn detailed unit positions where needed, perhaps depending on where the player or players plan their mission. The limitation would be that if you fly outside the pre-planned AO then it would be empty of units, unless some kind of spawn/despawn system was implemented.

 

These are ideas. How feasible or more importantly how profitable for ED it would be to try and implement it is a different question. But we don't really know what's possible and what is not, same as I bet many players thought you can't make DCS any better looking / performing and moving to a new graphics engine surprised everyone in how good it was.

[lanmancz]

I'm wondering why you're so sure...

 

Well of course I'm not entirely sure as I don't see into ED's kitchen but I believe that it was indicated that it is not a path that ED is going to take. On the other hand there is already a mod project that fiddles with a bunch of scripts to allow persistent mission outcomes with a dynamic campaign engine running outside of the sim utilizing the existing lua environment. I was just wondering if it would be possible for ED to take this approach onboard and develop it further internally and integrate it properly into the game. It seems to me that at least the interface between the DC module and DCS sim is pretty much already in place so it probably would be easier to develop than a major redesign of the current mission centric system. Furthermore it could be developed and sold as a separate module, one I would gladly buy as it would expand my DCS enjoyment tremendously. As I said I would be happy with such approach but I'm not saying that it's best or the only way it could be done. Like everyone else I'd just like to see any dynamic campaign system in game :-)

Edited January 15, 2016 by lanmancz

[Endy]

...but I believe that it was indicated that it is not a path that ED is going to take.

 

Well, just to mention it, there was an option in a recent forum poll by Wags where you could mark Dynamic Campaign as something you'd like to see in the future in DCS, so I assume it did not get there by accident.

 

There's a very long way from a forum poll option to a finished thing, and of course it could be something different than we imagine. But at least they seem to be considering something by that name which sounds promising and not as negative as you make it seem :)

[doveman]

I don't really understand why a DC would even require a bubble system. If I fly a mission then DCS has to do all the necessary computations for the enemy AI so why shouldn't it be able to do those same calculations when I'm not flying and show the various units moving on the map? Sure, it would need to do some extra work to have an AI control "my" aircraft when I'm not piloting it but that isn't a significant extra load.

 

Likewise if you have a MP scenario with 20 friendly pilotable aircraft. The enemy AI have to be computed anyway if people are piloting the friendly aircraft, so it's just a matter of doing the extra AI calculations for however many of those 20 friendly aircraft happen to be empty.

 

I'm not trying to underestimate the work needed to bring a DC to DCS as you also need a way of auto-generating appropriate tasks/missions to assign to each side's AI depending on what is going on or has recently happened and then there's all the GUI work, it's just this talk about the need for a bubble system I don't understand.

[Endy]

Well doveman, a bubble system or some other limiting solution is needed because of sheer scale and complexity.

 

The thing is, currently DCS simulates all units at a high level of complexity, all planes, ground units etc. I don't know what the current limit of AI units is before a decent PC / server grounds to a halt but i doubt it's possible to have full battalions of ground troops fighting each other, plus many planes in the air etc. at that high level.

 

That's why there would have to be something that either limits the number of units on the map, limiting them to some AO only, or simplify's their AI and interaction outside a certain range from the player while still giving semibelievable results. There are many theoretically possible solutions depending on design, but this is essentially a matter of resources available and how to keep the game still playable.