Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

[Badyk]

I dunno whether it's the glorious mist of nostalgia but in my humble opinion Tornado's mission editor and campaign shits over any flight sim made since from a great height.

[Mule]

I dunno whether it's the glorious mist of nostalgia but in my humble opinion Tornado's mission editor and campaign shits over any flight sim made since from a great height.

 

Indeed it does. That was a great sim.

[Rangi]

+1 for tornado DC

You could choose which level you wanted to plan missions for. You could be given your mission with pre-planned target and waypoints(pilot level) or you could be given target and plan the mission yourself(squadron level) or choose targets and plan your and other groups flights (group level). I have never played a better DC since and it makes it so much more immersive. You had limited resources down to the number of bombs of each type and when you hit a fixed target it stayed dead until repaired. I tried to replay it in XP but couldn't get joystick to work in DOSbox.

[sorcer3r]

+1 for tornado DC

You could choose which level you wanted to plan missions for. You could be given your mission with pre-planned target and waypoints(pilot level) or you could be given target and plan the mission yourself(squadron level) or choose targets and plan your and other groups flights (group level). I have never played a better DC since and it makes it so much more immersive. You had limited resources down to the number of bombs of each type and when you hit a fixed target it stayed dead until repaired. I tried to replay it in XP but couldn't get joystick to work in DOSbox.

 

 

sounds like F4's DC.

So +1 :thumbup:

[Troutish]

NOT a happy camper...

 

When i bought A10 a couple years ago I was thrilled with it. But after the second week i had played the campaigns, in the third week the missions, and in the fourth, I found the mission generator to be a little hum drum..

 

I've not played it since, and I have no plans to buy another DCS product for the simple reason there just ain't enough content. I cant get my friends to try it out for the same reason. The idea that a user friendly mission and campaign editor will create the conditions for tonnes of missions for everyone is NOT exclusive to DCS - other sim companies (Dangerous Waters for example) were based on the same faulty premise. If you look at the number of downloads here for the best missions and campaigns, its EXTREMELY low. What are the people who bought A10 doing? How many have stopped playing all together?

 

It does not follow that a person who likes military flight sims ALSO likes mission design, and the only way NOT to get bored of DCS producs is to make your own missions.

 

Falcon 4, in contrast, was a sim I played for THOUSANDS of hours over decade. Hell, I would have paid a monthly subscription for that, had it been an option! Dont tell me that DCS "wants" somthing like a dynamic campaign engine (which I've read before). Since they made this statement they have actually released a GROUND war simlator! WHich, I'm sure, is also lacking "content".

 

What is tragic about this, is that the DCS aircraft, flight, avionics and weapons modeling, the ground vehicles, the terrain, is all absolutely fantastic and second to none. THe vehicle AI is more than capable of supporting a DC. But the lack of a DC severely limits this sim's appeal to a flight sim market.

 

 

 

 

Trout

[Nealius]

I think most of the people who regularly play are doing so online in virtual squadrons where someone in their group regularly makes missions, but squadrons typically only release those missions to members. My virtual squadron in Falcon BMS does the same.

 

It would be nice to have a dynamic campaign in DCS, but with the great graphics this sim has including a dynamic campaign would tax a system even more.

[arteedecco]

I think most of the people who regularly play are doing so online in virtual squadrons where someone in their group regularly makes missions, but squadrons typically only release those missions to members. My virtual squadron in Falcon BMS does the same.

 

I challenge the statement that, "most of the people who regularly play" are in virtual squadrons. The vast majority of the people I regularly interact with do not belong to virtual squadrons and I am online 2-3 times per week.

 

It's a real shame to see all the locked-down servers online every night after work when a lot of us get to play.

 

I have mentioned in a few of my posts to other threads that the ME needs a significant overhaul... something along the lines of a whole new module (a whole new SIM of sorts). I agree with @Troutish on most of what he says.

 

It would be nice to have a dynamic campaign in DCS, but with the great graphics this sim has including a dynamic campaign would tax a system even more.

 

Falcon 4.0 did it with "great graphics" for its time, so I don't accept your argument. Have the sim build-out campaign / missions between flights, so it does not interfere with the game-play. This is effectively the same as having a human build out a new mission between flights except the machine does it much quicker.

[outlawal2]

One thing I wonder is why hasn't a third party developer stepped in and create real campaigns for DCS? Why couldn't someone do this? I know I would pay for GOOD campaigns especially if they had some decent story lines and maybe even some cutscenes...

 

Also, why couldn't a third party work on a dynamic campaign that crunches the numbers for the campaign on a server so that local graphics and such are unaffected?

[Troutish]

I think it is worth reminding people that while the DC in Falcon did indeed generate futile, non-sensical missions at times, it was a simple matter for the player to alter them, and play the game (if you wanted to) as a squadron or wing commander who had the authority to make strategic descisions. You also had the option of choosing what % of aircraft were assigned to different mission types. These two features effectively "boosted" the value of the DC and allowed fairly dumb AI not to hamper things

 

Of course, you COULD just choose missions tasked to your squadron, and then survive the war as best you could (who says that the brass know wtf they are doing?)

 

While you could sit back and watch the DC run a full campain, why would you, and is that why anyone bought the sim? Is that even a meaningful test of the campaign AI that is required? The lesson here is this: what most people really want is to immerse themselves in a major conflict and try to achive a meta-goal through individual sorties that mean somthing. To have the choice of playing like a squadron or wing commander, and think about how best to achive not just the mission goals, but the campaign goals too. Somtimes this means (as it did in falcon) conserving planes, pilots and weapons by NOT flying a mission, or by avoiding risky situations. It also meant that you hardly ever re-flew a mission after failing it, which as we all know is the bane of scriped missions and campaigns in any sim.

 

If these are the goals, you might be suprised at how much fun people could have with even a very simple form of DC.

 

I too would pay for a DC although I think that is entirely the wrong way of viewing things. The DC makes ALL DCS products worth buying and using. I dont fly the A10 I bought because I have NOTHING worth doing with it.

 

Trout

[Nealius]

I challenge the statement that, "most of the people who regularly play" are in virtual squadrons. The vast majority of the people I regularly interact with do not belong to virtual squadrons and I am online 2-3 times per week.

 

I haven't dabbled in playing DCS online yet, but in Falcon there's no way to search for servers and the only way to fly online is to be a part of a squadron and get the host's IP. I assumed the same was true for DCS.

 

Falcon 4.0 did it with "great graphics" for its time, so I don't accept your argument.

 

Then you don't know how the Falcon engine works. It is separated into a 2D world and a 3D world. The 2D world is the UI map with all the units, and as long as the clock is ticking those units are moving and fighting, but no 3D objects are being rendered and the math that is being used to calculate victory/defeat, etc. is much simpler. When the player enters the 3D world there is a "bubble" around the player where the units, 3D objects, and battles are pulled from the 2D world and rendered with more complicated computing. Outside of the bubble everything remains in the 2D world. This makes it easier on the system, but unfortunately limits the usable range of targeting pods.

 

From what I can tell, DCS has no bubble system. I think this is why triggers are used so often.

[seikdel]

I thought a company or two made some paid campaigns for the Shark? Isn't there a thread in the Shark forum about that?

 

Regardless, I'm sorry to hear you're dissatisfied, Troutish. The only 2 things I can offer are 1) join a squadron and 2) make some missions.

 

Seriously, join a decent squadron that makes their own missions and fly with them. Get TARS up and running and you'll be having a blast before you know it!

And on the second point, you can either walk away in disgust or you can put some time into learning the admittedly limited ME and then start turning out some awesome missions that you and your friends can enjoy.

 

And for what it's worth, you bought a product with a certain number of missions and are now unhappy that more haven't been given to you. Again, you have the opportunity to make your own missions and give them away, or even make money selling them. Also, hasn't ED been adding more missions and campaigns for their other A/C?

 

tl;dr Join a squadron and have fun!

[Wolf Rider]

@Troutish...

 

Wrong way to go about it, considering your forum join date

[arteedecco]

I haven't dabbled in playing DCS online yet, but in Falcon there's no way to search for servers and the only way to fly online is to be a part of a squadron and get the host's IP. I assumed the same was true for DCS.

 

Yeah, in DCS there is a server list for MP. You can still just connect directly to IPs as well.

 

Then you don't know how the Falcon engine works. It is separated into a 2D world and a 3D world. The 2D world is the UI map with all the units, and as long as the clock is ticking those units are moving and fighting, but no 3D objects are being rendered and the math that is being used to calculate victory/defeat, etc. is much simpler. When the player enters the 3D world there is a "bubble" around the player where the units, 3D objects, and battles are pulled from the 2D world and rendered with more complicated computing. Outside of the bubble everything remains in the 2D world. This makes it easier on the system, but unfortunately limits the usable range of targeting pods.

 

From what I can tell, DCS has no bubble system. I think this is why triggers are used so often.

 

You're right, I didn't understand how Falcon did it. That's interesting, but seems like a good compromise would use something similar to what I mentioned previously where the campaign is recalculated between flights, not live. You still get a varied set of missions, but it's more "turn based" instead of real-time.

 

Would be very very awesome if the battlefield commander from Combined Arms was integrated into a more complete SIM where you could effectively manage a campaign, or delegate certain parts to AI...

 

It is worth noting that Combined Arms does allow for some of this battlefield management today, which is pretty neat. However, it is certainly not a finished product IMO.

[Wolf Rider]

yes, it is totally the wrong way of viewing things...

[Exorcet]

I haven't dabbled in playing DCS online yet, but in Falcon there's no way to search for servers and the only way to fly online is to be a part of a squadron and get the host's IP. I assumed the same was true for DCS.

Not even close. DCS is pretty much hop on and play, though server quality varies.

 

 

From what I can tell, DCS has no bubble system. I think this is why triggers are used so often.

Yes, no bubble.

 

As for the topic here, I don't have a problem with DCS, but I guess that's not to say no one should. I started with LOMAC, didn't like the default missions offered and then made my own. Basically ended up never playing the pre built missions. I guess it was a continuation of what I did in USNF97.

 

The mission editor isn't bad, and you can make decent missions fairly quickly, especially if you use templates (not just unit templates, but mission templates). The new fast mission generator can be used as a short cut too.

 

I haven't really looked, but aren't there a decent number of user made missions available for download anyway? I know one of mine is, but that one is up only by request. Some better ones may follow later.

[arteedecco]

@Troutish...

 

Wrong way to go about it, considering your forum join date

 

No reason he can't express his criticism. I absolutely love the SIM and ED for making it, but it doesn't mean I don't have things I'd like changed.

 

Add something to the conversation rather than jumping on him. Help him see why you like it.

[Exorcet]

@Troutish...

 

Wrong way to go about it, considering your forum join date

The join date doesn't mean much.

[Wolf Rider]

No reason he can't express his criticism.

 

following your line of thought there... ain't no reason (according to you) I can't express mine either

 

 

The join date doesn't mean much.

 

Hmmm... "bought it years ago", then lobs with a whinge

[JHzlwd]

Well, I do all my own missions (single player) for somewhat the reasons you give. I especially enjoy a good story line based, in part, on real-world situations. Maybe I should upload few :~

 

The downside of this is that building a good mission takes a lot of time and by the time you are finished perfecting it you may be getting tired of all the test flights. It's hard work and can become tedious.

 

I also find the DCS AI less than compelling. enemy units will sometimes refuse to engage, stop moving if one of their number is hit, etc. I would like more control over what they do in more situations.

[arteedecco]

following your line of thought there... ain't no reason (according to you) I can't express mine either

 

Absolutely right. Everyone is entitled to their own "wrong" opinion :) (joking). What I was saying to you is similar to what Exorcet mentions, join date doesn't mean much.

 

Also, getting opinions from fresh eyes is usually useful. I was encouraging you to provide some constructive feedback. I mean, you appeared to be defensive about his statements, which to me implied you really like the SIM. So I wanted you to post what you love about that SIM that make it so you don't mind not having dynamic campaigns.

[159th_Viper]

It honestly NEVER ceases to amaze me. Here we are, happy as a clam at high tide to pay $60 for a first person shooter that lasts 8 hours and it's done, finish, completed, played through, end-of-story, binned, shelved to be played again....maybe.....another 8 hours.

 

Yet we moan and groan and pay $40 for a high fidelity flight SIM that keeps us occupied for months, or at the very least a shiteload longer than 8 hours and we moan that those months were just not good enough for our $40.......no Sireee hell no!

 

We want Years of entertainment for our $40!

 

I wonder if Tesco offers perpetual grocery replenishment for the dollars I drop there every week.......I'll ask.

[Wolf Rider]

@ Artdecco...

It seems more like you are trying to do all that now... not then

 

If you have something to offer, and offer genuine criticism, then by all means offer it up, but try to avoid coming in on a boot stomping whinge... especially "years after" buying the sim

[NineLine]

I think if everyone looks closely at additions being made and worked on you will notice some dynamic additions. I dont think it will be like Falcon like many seem to want, but with the stuff ED seems to be adding, its looking very interesting. For example, the Resource Management... if you havent played around with that, you should.

 

We aren't there yet, but we seem to be pointed in the right direction.

[arteedecco]

I would be happy to pay more for ongoing content and updates.

 

It's not an either-or argument. The sim is amazing in what it does AND there are things that it could do better; things that have been done in the past by other sims quite well.

 

It would be awesome to have a third party dev up a series of campaigns.

 

In-fact, in the third-party forum I think I read about someone hedging towards making a whole training campaign...

 

Good points @SiThSpAwN It does make the mission a lot better when everyone can't just launch with 8 AIM-120s, get splashed, get a new plane with 8 more AIM-120s, etc.

Edited April 2, 2013 by arteedecco

[Troutish]

Well I'm not that dissatisfied as a customer, more....frustrated at what I see as an under-utilized asset. If I were a DCS investor I would make a DC TOP priority for the civilian part of the business. As sombody just said, the campaign itself does not need to run while the pilot is in the air, it can do its math between missions. And like in Falcon, the combat that happens BVR can be computed differently so as not to choke your PC.

 

As to using the mission editor myself, I actually dont want to know the forces I'm up against, what their plans are, or how my supiriors are planning to fight the war:smilewink: There are limits to how much random stuff you should put in your own missions.

 

I also have to add that with this and other sims / games I can't say I've had the best experiences with player made content. A small portion will always be fantastic, but there are many that have a silly or unbelievable premise, are too hard/ too easy, buggy, etc. Frankly, many companies have fobbed off the provision of good content onto the "communty" and dont really provide it themselves. Or they think online play is sufficiently exciting so as not to require a DC.

 

If you have a decent DC you dont really NEED player made content, and as I've said, replayability goes through the roof, for both online and offline play. For all its bugs, the fact that people STILL play falcon says all you need to know abou the value of DCs. Better jet sims have come and gone and yet falcon still gets played. I also think all the right lessons have been learned about what NOT to do with a DC based on the falcon experience. Importantly, none of these lessons discredit the basic idea or its value.