Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

[EtherealN]

J.Heller, you seem to be suffering from selective perception. ;)

 

We've stated several times the following basic facts, in this thread:

1) ED knows people want a DC.

2) ED wants a DC.

3) ED wants the DC to be good.

4) ED therefore works incrementally, just as with all aspects of the product. This ensures that nothing breaks the bank and quality is maintained.

 

Where do you think the mission generator included in DCS A-10C came from? ;)

[leafer]

He probably fast forward anything he doesn't want to conprehend like your post above.

[GGTharos]

No one said that stuff that's currently in DCS is perfect or that there's no room for improvement. That, however, is the point which we are trying to make and you're continually missing.

 

Your proposition: "Make a DC right now, it'll sell like hotcakes!"

Us: "That's just not feasible right now"

You: "Waaaargh you people don't know what you're doing!"

 

That's how the conversation went, more or less. Have you noticed some issue with the random mission generator, other than what you've mentioned? I have. How about some AI issues?

 

All of this /has/ to be sorted, otherwise the DC will end up being pretty stupid, or otherwise it will have to try to account for things that it really shouldn't (ie. AI problems).

 

These practical issues aside, there are issues of time and money. Because of all this, just dropping everything and creating a DC would be disastrous.

 

The problem wasn't that you wanted a DC. Everyone wants a DC. The problem is that you made some rather presumtuous comments, effectively telling ED what their business is, and that was what was not agreed with.

 

The rest is fluff - just us pointing out to you that yes, you can live without a DC for now. And once more, I have to disagree that carefully crafted scenarios have to be 'one timers'. There's plenty of randomization capabilities in the mission editor already, and even if they're not the easiest to use, and even though you don't have a follow up mission based on the results of the previous, it shouldn't matter too much if you just treat it as an exercise is seeing what the real combat pilot experiences in combat (I'm sure you don't need any special missions for experiencing burning holes in the sky).

 

Perhaps if you absolutely treat it like a game, which undoubtedly some people will, then you might call it boring, but IMHO - at this point you're really missing the forrest for the trees. Continuation on back-order right now, and somewhat handled through the current campaign interface.

 

I'll say again: Is there room for improvement? Sure thing, everyone knows it and no one says it ain't so.

Will you get your pet peeve taken care of right now? If your pet peeve is a DC (or in my case, a DCS F-15, more realistic missiles, radar, CM's, ECM, blahblahblahblah :D ... and a Su-27 for others :D ) ... not any time soon.

 

All in good time; their schedule, not yours - that's the bottom line.

 

Can anyone on the ED team at least admit to the advantages of a DC, if only to give me hope that one day we might get one for the DCS series?

What good is realism( a term that scares me, since it seems those here think it means flying the same pre-made missions over and over again) if what happens in one mission has nothing to do with the next? Let the flaming begin (Tharos, Eth, anyone associated with ED).

[Bucic]

GG, could you tell me this then-what are your top 3 wanted additions for dcs to make its env. more rich that in >your< opinion are feasible within 2 years time frame?

[EtherealN]

I'm not GG, but I can give you my list:

 

1) Passing of flags between missions for campaigns

2) Advanced flight model for missiles

3) Proper fragmentation/shock modeling

 

Obviously though, that's my opinion and doesn't necessarily reflect what's in development or what will make it within the time. (Just to be really clear. :) )

[GGTharos]

My opinion ... hm, ok.

 

1. Land vehicle AI upgrade to detect slope, impasses, and decision making to avoid such obstacles or even change tactics. Tactics for hull down/turret down slug-outs, urban combat tactics, anti-air tactics, infantry tactics (I packed a lot of stuff into point #1, eh?) infantry upgrade.

2. Dynamic IADS and ABBCC/GCI.

3. FACs. Not just JTAC, but dudes on the ground calling for your help.

 

TBH, note that I'm an A2A guy, and pretty much almost none of this is A2A stuff. But it does create a war simulation, and a war sim is what you need even for good integrated and meaningful A2A.

 

I'd also like to add that the top 3 additions are just ... not enough. I can't fit all the stuff in 3 points. Everything truly goes into very deep detail. You get the details wrong, you can ruin everything.

 

For example, I think that the strides that ED has taken with A2A refueling are simply amazing. A little more fine-turning will be great. Likewise, continued evolution of the ME and the RMG will be extremely helpful in solidifying a good experience.

 

I'd also like to see more voice work, more AFMs, yadda yadda. Some enhances the environment, some, just the plane you're flying. All are important because the end result is that you fly specific tactics because of your capabilities/limitations as opposed to your opponent's. The more realistic the vehicles, the AI, etc, the more realistic your sim. Once a lot of that work is done, you can bolt a DC on top of this slowly.

 

Note that I'm also all for EtherealN's #1, but at this point I'd take it further and ask for state of damaged map objects as well.

 

GG, could you tell me this then-what are your top 3 wanted additions for dcs to make its env. more rich that in >your< opinion are feasible within 2 years time frame?

Edited August 19, 2011 by GGTharos

[Speed]

Thanks for those lists guys. GG, I have to agree with your list, especially #1. Falcon 4 was able to get away with crap ground combat modelling and AI because, well, it was far enough ahead of its time in other aspects, I guess... and more importantly, you were a fast jet so you didn't look to closely a lot of the time, and that had a lot of other things to do. DCS will have to be much, much, much more in depth. The Falcon 4 campaign engine in DCS would just be ridiculously bad.

 

I think though that you should add that DCS aircraft AI also will need an upgrade. It doesn't matter in scripted scenarios when the AI gets shot down, because either the mission is changed so that they don't, or who cares anyway? but once you get

 

1) Limited assets

and

2) Expect the AI to be able to perform a task the first time without baby-sitting

 

things get a lot tougher. The aircraft AI as it is, is adequate for scripted missions (though it can cause some major headaches for us mission builders still), but totally inadequate for a dynamic campaign.

 

Just a little of my own perspective though, take it or leave it, I don't think that many folks have demanded an immediate dynamic campaign, though I could be wrong... Much of the debate centered about points where it sounded like (to some people) that you (the moderators) weren't in favor of a dynamic campaign at all. I understood that you guys are in favor of it (an eventual dynamic campaign), but I think that others didn't.

[GGTharos]

Indeed, though I would like to ask one thing ... have you tried setting up AI in AMBUSH CAPs in A-10C? ;) Give it a shot ... 'orbit' is the greatest tool ever for sticking an AI lying in wait behind a mountain. :D

[Succellus]

I think DCS has put the 'flight' into Combat Flight Simulator.

 

The flight was already there since jane s F15...

 

The combat was there too.

 

What wasn t is the level of "realism"

 

It s just that DCS does better.

 

I think what people are missing is the story.... You can t see the flot evolve on the go.

Sometimes in DID EF2k i just pressed the forward button to see what would happen withput me dipping in.

Sometime it was interesting to fly a mission a see the flot changed when back.

Doing a misison diferently than what was throwed at me, repriorizing targets...

I know real pilot don t do this, but i don t care much, i m not a pilot.

 

No matter what, DCS system still feels like disconected canned sequence.

 

It would be nice to have a DC...i guess i ll havo to wait until DCS does it, or someone else.

[NineLine]

Would be nice to see some sort of "spawn" tool for the mission editor, some sort of chance calculation (if thats even possible) so that everytime the mission is played these spawn points have a chance to have a unit there, or not. I mean you would still have an idea where stuff might be, but might give it a little more of a fresh feel.

 

I really need to sit down and get into the mission editor more, I know there is alot of stuff I havent gotten into yet. I mean who can really complain about this series after all :)

[winchesterdelta1]

Sorry never mind.

Edited August 19, 2011 by winchesterdelta1

[HerrKaputt]

I remember once in EECH going for a mission in an Apache (CAS mission I think), and when I came back... my last waypoint (a FARP) was now controlled by the enemy! I ended up having to go through a considerable amount of enemy territory, with few weapons, in an attempt to reach the second nearest landing site.

 

I failed by the way; I was too busy scanning for air threats that a SAM shot me down :D

[EtherealN]

Would be nice to see some sort of "spawn" tool for the mission editor, some sort of chance calculation (if thats even possible) so that everytime the mission is played these spawn points have a chance to have a unit there, or not. I mean you would still have an idea where stuff might be, but might give it a little more of a fresh feel.

 

Already possible - and actually fairly easy to make too. Just have some randomized triggers and voila!

[Bucic]

Thanks for your answers. I'm really surprised none o you mentioned ATC though :huh: And performance improvements. We can do a populated mission by hand but to what end? Crawling FPS.

[EtherealN]

Well, 3 options is too little to pick up everything. :P Both ATC and performance is always undergoing work, and given a 2-year timeframe I wouldn't be surprised if we see more multithreading happening. I personally don't think performance is that big of an obstacle right now - sure it's not perfect for the really major missions, but there's other things that are more important to fix first,

[Bucic]

Call me names but the current ATC does not differ much from Lock On 1.x times...

[Jona33]

Call me names but the current ATC does not differ much from Lock On 1.x times...

 

He's got a point, hearing your own voice and having maintenance are the big changes. The style's good though, rather than having phrases which are supposed to sound less boring but get repeated non stop till I'm sick of them eg. F4AF. It's pretty realistic I guess rather than a load of pointless shouting. The ATC is something FSX does very well.

[Grimes]

 

1) Passing of flags between missions for campaigns

 

Anything that is possible via single player must be possible in multiplayer. But generally speaking, sending flags or world object conditions to a next mission requires other additions to the editor to better communicate and organize missions that follow. What would be needed is really a question of how people would plan to use such a feature. For instance the mission briefing and overall objective may be dependent based on what is alive and what is dead. Not to mention other factors that can have a relatively large impact on current or future missions which are tied together. Just think of the destruction of a bridge, it already can have a ripple effect on the current mission, but down the line it fundamentally changes the AI pathfinding and what they can accomplish in a mission.

[EtherealN]

Well, regarding briefings, I agree that the feature would have to be extendible to the briefings themselves. I just basically considered all those details to be included in the "feature" itself as far as the list went. :)

[Grimes]

Even so, it would be nice to have the ability to adjust and change the mission briefing over the course of a mission. Especially for MP where you could update the current status of the mission for players who are joining it in progress. Even withholding briefing images would prove useful in assigning players new and "unplanned" targets over the course of a mission.

[J. Heller]

J.Heller, you seem to be suffering from selective perception. ;)

 

We've stated several times the following basic facts, in this thread:

1) ED knows people want a DC.

2) ED wants a DC.

3) ED wants the DC to be good.

4) ED therefore works incrementally, just as with all aspects of the product. This ensures that nothing breaks the bank and quality is maintained.

 

Where do you think the mission generator included in DCS A-10C came from? ;)

 

 

Thanks, thats all I really needed to hear. That there will eventually be a DC is good enough for me, now to just wait...

[Charlie_01]

Hummm... I think in the next DCS module sholud be enough give the possibility to add in mission and campaign editor the so-called dynamic group, as in Janes' Fleet Command and in further Sonalyst naval sims.

It's simply the feature to set the % of chance that a single element or an entire group should be present or not every time the same mission starts. More to set the % of chances that an element should be or not in a group.

For better explaination you can look at the attached extract from J.F.C. manual.

 

SCS-FleetCommandManual extracted.pdf

[EtherealN]

While there is no specific "Dynamic group", the function is easy to create through existing trigger system in Flaming Cliffs 2, DCS Black Shark and DCS A-10C Warthog. The disadvantage is that for a large mission where you might want to have a lot of them it becomes difficult to keep track of all the flags and one-time triggers that are required.

[Charlie_01]

While there is no specific "Dynamic group", the function is easy to create through existing trigger system in Flaming Cliffs 2, DCS Black Shark and DCS A-10C Warthog. The disadvantage is that for a large mission where you might want to have a lot of them it becomes difficult to keep track of all the flags and one-time triggers that are required.

 

I'm not sure it's really possible to make by triggers the same as dynamic group. This seems more like the function to set system failure. The percent of chance means that a failure either could happen o not in the same mission and condiction. Trigger can make a group spawn when a condiction came true, but eventually the result is more or less the same and the group spawn with setted composition in a certain spot and in a certain moment into the misson.

Dynamic group means a group can just exist or not in the same mission and to be spotted in a place or in another and this is setted in a straight-forward way.

I think just this could make a flight sim like DCS modules really intersting also without a dynamic campaign.

[EtherealN]

The percent of chance means that a failure either could happen o not in the same mission and condiction. Trigger can make a group spawn when a condiction came true

 

Connect trigger for unit A to Flag X.

Connect trigger for unit B to Flag Y.

Create one-time triggers for mission start

Trigger 1, 30% chance, set Flag X True.

Trigger 2, 30% chance, set Flag Y True.

 

You can also use and/or operands on this, for example to ensure that unit B only activates if BOTH Trigger 1 and 2 occur. You can also set this up to ensure that if unit A gets spawned, unit B absolutely will not. (Or will have a different chanse of spawning.)

 

Point being: you can get the same function, and the basic workings of it is easy. The problem as we have it right now is that for a really big mission it can become difficult for the designer to keep track of everything, which certainly is an area that can use improvement.

 

Dynamic group means a group can just exist or not in the same mission and to be spotted in a place or in another and this is setted in a straight-forward way.

I think just this could make a flight sim like DCS modules really intersting also without a dynamic campaign.

 

Install (if you don't have it) DCS Black Shark.

Open GoW campaign missions through mission editor and run the same one several times.

 

You'll find that there are many circumstancesz where you'll run into hostile Cobras and such one time, and no air in another case, and UH's on a third run. On the same mission. The feature is already there. ;)

 

It works in MP as well, and has been used extensively. My fav case was Panzers old Midgettossers Take 1 mission - where no-one ever had to refuel. Threats could end up completely different each time it ran. :)