Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

[HerrKaputt]

I’ve actually been working on a Dynamic Campaign engine for Flaming Cliffs 1 for the past year … just for the fun of it. I’ve made pretty good progress. Right now, it just has ground units but eventually aircraft will be implemented. A ground force will attack if it has a reasonable chance of success and will actually become more aggressive if its territory is threatened. As my program generates subsequent campaign stages, group positions and strengths get updated. It’s cool because a tank battle can be fought in one stage, then, in the next stage, you see the updated tank positions and all the carnage from the last battle … destroyed buildings, tank caracasses, artillery holes, etc. I still have a ton of work to do, though. I’m wondering if I should get Flaming Cliffs 2 and adapt my program for that before going any further.

 

That sounds very nice!

 

Whether you get FC2 now or later depends essentially on your goals and your budget. If you are doing this just for your individual fun, I'd say you can keep working on FC1 until you get FC2 (if you ever get it), and then worry about adapting.

 

On the other hand, if you'd like others to try your work, then it's probably best if you switch to FC2 when possible.

[EagleEye]

I’ve actually been working on a Dynamic Campaign engine for Flaming Cliffs 1 for the past year … just for the fun of it. I’ve made pretty good progress. Right now, it just has ground units but eventually aircraft will be implemented. A ground force will attack if it has a reasonable chance of success and will actually become more aggressive if its territory is threatened. As my program generates subsequent campaign stages, group positions and strengths get updated. It’s cool because a tank battle can be fought in one stage, then, in the next stage, you see the updated tank positions and all the carnage from the last battle … destroyed buildings, tank caracasses, artillery holes, etc. I still have a ton of work to do, though. I’m wondering if I should get Flaming Cliffs 2 and adapt my program for that before going any further.

Interesting. I guess, at least Speed will ask you a few questions.

I would suggest you to adapt it to FC2, because it`s the most recent. Would be great to have some more info`s how you did it and so on...you know.;)

[Speed]

That sounds very nice!

 

Whether you get FC2 now or later depends essentially on your goals and your budget. If you are doing this just for your individual fun, I'd say you can keep working on FC1 until you get FC2 (if you ever get it), and then worry about adapting.

 

On the other hand, if you'd like others to try your work, then it's probably best if you switch to FC2 when possible.

 

If you're going to update it so more people can enjoy it, there's very little point in updating it to FC 2. Why would you when no one/very few will be playing FC 2 very soon? The vast majority of the current FC 2 crowd is going to switch to the unified BS2/A-10C/P-51/FC 3 world. Furthermore, developing it for FC 2 ignores the larger DCS community. If you've got code you developed for FC 1, you might as well update it for current DCS, and then it will probably be ready for FC 3 whenever it comes out this year (most likely), and in the meantime, the larger DCS community gets to enjoy it too.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Speed

[Toxe]

I’ve actually been working on a Dynamic Campaign engine for Flaming Cliffs 1 for the past year … just for the fun of it. I’ve made pretty good progress. Right now, it just has ground units but eventually aircraft will be implemented. A ground force will attack if it has a reasonable chance of success and will actually become more aggressive if its territory is threatened. As my program generates subsequent campaign stages, group positions and strengths get updated. It’s cool because a tank battle can be fought in one stage, then, in the next stage, you see the updated tank positions and all the carnage from the last battle … destroyed buildings, tank caracasses, artillery holes, etc.

Now that sounds very interesting! :thumbup:

 

I still have a ton of work to do, though. I’m wondering if I should get Flaming Cliffs 2 and adapt my program for that before going any further.

Actually I'd suggest to go for DCS. Hopefully FC3 will be compatible with it anyways.

[rweaves6]

I cant add anything intelligent to the discussion, but I just want to say a DC is very important to me and is a very big part in my wishes for the future of combat flight sims. Yes perhaps the Falcon 4 DC wasnt very good in reality, but the feeling I got from flying F4 DC missions, even if I failed almost every single one, nothing has ever come close to that feeling, yes the graphics sucked, and the DC was broken, and I got killed every time, and the game crahed all the time. Didnt matter to me, just the feeling it gave me to think that I was part of something bigger, and that the targets I failed to destroy would be there next mission was good enough and nothing has come close to that. I would much rather be a part of something like that, and fail every damn mission, and be totally overrun by enemy forces, than do a mission, fail a couple of times until I learn the trick, or twist to finishing it, and then finish it on the third try. Even if it all was just an illusion, it sure worked on me. I understand that its very very hard to do something good and dynamic for DCS, I get the problems, and I understand that it maybe wont happen, I understand why, I wont complain about it because I know how hard it is, I will still support ED even if they say DC is impossible for us, but I will never stop dreaming about a good DC that can give me that feeling again :)

 

Just a laymans view, I cant participate in the discussion on your level guys :) Great discussion, very interesting to follow :)

 

+1. Very well said, I believe that you'll find the majority of us who spent years with Falcon would agree. Heck, Rowan's Battle of Britain was great at showing a deceptive DC. I understand that it was hardly a DC in reality but ask how many that purchased the product at the time if they knew that. We are not all programmers with a pile of logic in our heads :D, we can be easily "fooled". So in other words, quit giving your core campaign audiance too much credit, we are not bright people ;).

[badger66]

I think overall ED have done a marvelous job , especially with respect to A-10C , and their getting better all the time .

 

How good is that !!! What more can you ask when their products are ever improving ?

[kontiuka]

If you're going to update it so more people can enjoy it, there's very little point in updating it to FC 2. Why would you when no one/very few will be playing FC 2 very soon? The vast majority of the current FC 2 crowd is going to switch to the unified BS2/A-10C/P-51/FC 3 world. Furthermore, developing it for FC 2 ignores the larger DCS community. If you've got code you developed for FC 1, you might as well update it for current DCS, and then it will probably be ready for FC 3 whenever it comes out this year (most likely), and in the meantime, the larger DCS community gets to enjoy it too.

 

Yes, you're right. If I do decide to make something for the community, it would make sense to work with DCS or FC3 (when it comes out). But even FC2 would be a good starting point as the campaign structure seems to be similar to DCS. It looks very, very different from Lock On's campaign structure unfortunately for me. No more embedded xml I guess.

 

Maybe you or someone can answer this question. How does FC2 / DCS persist the campaign world state (destroyed buildings, etc.)? In Lock On, it's persisted in the header of the campaign file but I don't see anything like that for FC2 / DCS.

 

Thanks.

kon

[HerrKaputt]

If you're going to update it so more people can enjoy it, there's very little point in updating it to FC 2. Why would you when no one/very few will be playing FC 2 very soon? The vast majority of the current FC 2 crowd is going to switch to the unified BS2/A-10C/P-51/FC 3 world. Furthermore, developing it for FC 2 ignores the larger DCS community. If you've got code you developed for FC 1, you might as well update it for current DCS, and then it will probably be ready for FC 3 whenever it comes out this year (most likely), and in the meantime, the larger DCS community gets to enjoy it too.

 

Speed is right. I didn't think of this at first, but I agree with him now: it's probably wiser to update it to DCS. If you don't own a DCS module and don't want to buy one (for testing), maybe wait for FC3 and do it then.

[EagleEye]

Yes, maybe FC3 is the way to go with that ressource management system. There may more functions in it to store "campaign world state" or the like(unfortunately I dont know a thing about that stuff).

Edited February 29, 2012 by EagleEye

[Jona33]

Yes, you're right. If I do decide to make something for the community, it would make sense to work with DCS or FC3 (when it comes out). But even FC2 would be a good starting point as the campaign structure seems to be similar to DCS. It looks very, very different from Lock On's campaign structure unfortunately for me. No more embedded xml I guess.

 

Maybe you or someone can answer this question. How does FC2 / DCS persist the campaign world state (destroyed buildings, etc.)? In Lock On, it's persisted in the header of the campaign file but I don't see anything like that for FC2 / DCS.

 

Thanks.

kon

 

The problem with the change is now it's easier to make but no more persistent structures any more. (The problem with them was the parked aircraft never disappearing when destroyed,)

[kontiuka]

The problem with the change is now it's easier to make but no more persistent structures any more. (The problem with them was the parked aircraft never disappearing when destroyed,)

Ya, I can see that. Or if airports or bridges get destroyed in one stage, but a subsequent stage uses those airports or bridges. That would cause problems. That was something I was planning on handling in my program. Well, hopefully ED brings the persistency back in some form. I think it's a fantastic feature.

[Speed]

Ya, I can see that. Or if airports or bridges get destroyed in one stage, but a subsequent stage uses those airports or bridges. That would cause problems. That was something I was planning on handling in my program. Well, hopefully ED brings the persistency back in some form. I think it's a fantastic feature.

 

Simple, generate the new mission with static objects of dead units where units had died in previous missions. Destroyed map objects would be much harder... the only way I know to get them destroyed again is to blow them up at mission start with a trigger.

[Speed]

Yes, you're right. If I do decide to make something for the community, it would make sense to work with DCS or FC3 (when it comes out). But even FC2 would be a good starting point as the campaign structure seems to be similar to DCS. It looks very, very different from Lock On's campaign structure unfortunately for me. No more embedded xml I guess.

 

Maybe you or someone can answer this question. How does FC2 / DCS persist the campaign world state (destroyed buildings, etc.)? In Lock On, it's persisted in the header of the campaign file but I don't see anything like that for FC2 / DCS.

 

Thanks.

kon

 

No persistence that I am aware of. I didn't start using ED products until mid 2009; I never flew FC1, and really only bought FC2 to support ED. In FC1, would destroyed map objects persist over several missions? If so, might it be possible for me to see how this was done? It might give a clue-in as to whether there is a way to pre-destroy map objects in current versions.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Speed

[swepain]

is it possible at all to fly a campaign with current ME in mp ?

[Grimes]

is it possible at all to fly a campaign with current ME in mp ?

 

Yeah, it just has to be organized differently. Campaigns in DCS are just a bunch of individual missions that exist at different stages within a campaign. In SP the game keeps track of your score in an individual mission and decides whether you can advance to the next stagen or not. MP lacks this functionality as there are no stages or really anything to link one mission to another. So for a campaign to work each mission must tell the players which mission to load next and hope that the players follow its advice.

[Heli Shed]

Yeah, it just has to be organized differently. Campaigns in DCS are just a bunch of individual missions that exist at different stages within a campaign. In SP the game keeps track of your score in an individual mission and decides whether you can advance to the next stagen or not. MP lacks this functionality as there are no stages or really anything to link one mission to another. So for a campaign to work each mission must tell the players which mission to load next and hope that the players follow its advice.

 

Or link certain achievements in the mission which create 'True' Flags that when stacked load a specific mission.

 

I have done this several times.

 

You can have multiple missions available to be loaded as a result of subsequent actions.

 

works well.

 

Just make sure you have conceptualised the mission BEFORE designing it. Dynamic design doesn't work too well with this and negates Situational awareness of the mission overall. IMHO.

 

'T'

[swepain]

Or link certain achievements in the mission which create 'True' Flags that when stacked load a specific mission.

 

I have done this several times.

 

You can have multiple missions available to be loaded as a result of subsequent actions.

 

works well.

 

Just make sure you have conceptualised the mission BEFORE designing it. Dynamic design doesn't work too well with this and negates Situational awareness of the mission overall. IMHO.

 

'T'

 

Im guessing that this is by starting a singel mission, then that will link to other singel missions and hopefully they will make sence and feel like a campaign, but its not is it.. so the answer to my question should have been no, but u can make a bunch of singel mission's feel just like a campaign if u edit and spend a week or so fakking around with the missions u want to fly! :huh:

[HerrKaputt]

Or link certain achievements in the mission which create 'True' Flags that when stacked load a specific mission.

 

I have done this several times.

 

You can have multiple missions available to be loaded as a result of subsequent actions.

 

works well.

 

Just make sure you have conceptualised the mission BEFORE designing it. Dynamic design doesn't work too well with this and negates Situational awareness of the mission overall. IMHO.

 

'T'

 

Gunship 2000 had that. Surely by now ED can do something a little better? :)

[Mr_Burns]

I still cant get into this game, I built a simpit and hotas, it has everything except I dont care about the campaign, I cant commit to MP but surely something can be done to SP, its an Air to Ground platform, so the ground needs more 'smarts' to make the A-10 air more meaningful.

 

I need a FAC calling in danger close on a building over the street from his platoon, or a few drainage channels in a file with red crossing and blue in the trees to the north whilst I strafe the troops.

 

How many A-10C's in Afghanistan have been fighting strelka and sams?

 

Come on DCS..please!!

[159th_Viper]

I need a FAC calling in danger close on a building over the street from his platoon, or a few drainage channels in a file with red crossing and blue in the trees to the north whilst I strafe the troops.

 

The ME and necessary tools are there to do just that. Have you attempted to build missions fitting your desired scenario?

[Jona33]

The ME and necessary tools are there to do just that. Have you attempted to build missions fitting your desired scenario?

 

They may be there but it's bloody difficult to get good results. But to be honest the only DC out there (that works) is Falcons and you don't exactly end up with any kind of CAS missions, (I know it's an F-16 but still), creating a counter insurgency DC would be almost impossible to make it good.

[weasel75]

..., its an Air to Ground platform, so the ground needs more 'smarts' to make the A-10 air more meaningful.

 

I need a FAC calling in danger close on a building over the street from his platoon, or a few drainage channels in a file with red crossing and blue in the trees to the north whilst I strafe the troops. ...

 

I would say that this kind of 'smart' is difficult to achieve in SP - since the enemy would need a really good AI to make things believable (e.g. not running straight into the enemy's fire, but taking cover, retreating, hiding or even ambushing, ...).

 

Maybe "Combined Arms" (MP with human players) can help to achieve that one day?

[HerrKaputt]

They may be there but it's bloody difficult to get good results. But to be honest the only DC out there (that works) is Falcons and you don't exactly end up with any kind of CAS missions, (I know it's an F-16 but still), creating a counter insurgency DC would be almost impossible to make it good.

 

EECH begs to differ (even though F4's DC is better).

[Jona33]

EECH begs to differ (even though F4's DC is better).

 

Sorry haven't been around in simming that long. I've heard mentions of EECH but never known what it is.

[Nate--IRL--]

Enemy Engaged:- Comanche V Hokum

 

Nate

Edited April 30, 2012 by Nate--IRL--