My initial concerns/problems with DCS a-10

[rockyalexander]

or

 

Mission Start> Random 50% > Flag 1

Mission Start> Random 50% > Flag 2

 

if flag 1 = true and flag 2 = true, flag 101

if flag 1 = true and flag 2 = false, flag 102

if flag 1 = false and flag 2 = true, flag 103

if flag 1 = false and flag 2 = false, flag 104

 

101, 102, 103, 104 become mustually exclusive, equally probable scenarios. Each can then have further randomisation etc..

 

You could theoretically put 4 entirely different missions in 1 .miz file if you wanted.. (or 8 - (3 initial flags get 8 scenarios)) ...

 

I can't thank you enough for this. :thumbup:

[EtherealN]

Not to forget that you can also create simple biases through OR operands as well. Say you have something that you want to happen in cases 1 to 3, but not the fourth. You don't need to do it once for each, just

 

if flag 101 = true or flag 102 = true or flag 103 = true then flag 201

 

And then flag 201 might be linked to that CAP flight you wanted to have for almost all (but not quite all) possible scenarios.

[Weta43]

It is possible to add a lot of replayability (Unprediactability) using the ME if you're prepared to have a little play with it ...

[jeffyd123]

heres a bunch of missions.....

http://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=140

[tyrspawn]

I don't really mean to be snappy here, but I do get frustrated when people (most often non-programmers) say things like that...

 

Which developer is alive, and which developer is dead?

Which product is being actively developed, which product relies on reverse engineering and hacks (albeit sometimes pretty good hacks) because the full-scale commercial developments have been abandoned due to failure at reaching and maintaining profitability?

 

Pretty much anything can be done if you throw enough money and time at it, but you need to also be able to recoup those expenses. As you might have noticed, Microprose no longer exists. I cannot of course claim that the DC was the reason they failed financially, but it certainly didn't save them. (And there ends the arguments about "if only ED made a DC they'd sell sooooo much more". Experience says something else, as the Microprose investors found out.)

 

The recipy that has allowed this type of simulation to survive is synergies between military and consumer markets, and the military quite simply isn't the least interested in a dynamic campaign engine. They are interested in very specific training scenarios. Thus a DC like Falcon's offers no synergies at all (while the mission editor features currently in the simulator do offer such synergies).

 

As for "superior". Well, that's an issue of personal preference. If the sole metric is "does it have a DC" then sure. If there's other metrics in the equation it is my opinion that the result changes dramatically.

 

But for the aforementioned reasons, I personally suspect that where we are at today, the option isn't one of making a sim with a DC engine or making a sim without a DC engine. The options are between making a sim without a DC engine or not making a sim at all. (Or focusing entirely on military markets.)

 

Sad but true.

 

Fanboy propaganda.

 

If what you said is true, it still doesn't excuse not making the PRE-EXISTING LINEAR campaign multiplayer compatible. How much work would it have taken for the campaigns to be given more player slots? At no point did I say I expected a DC, nor did I ever bring up the DC, I was referring to Falcon's multiplayer support - you just decided to go on a soapbox for no reason.

Edited March 8, 2011 by tyrspawn

[nomdeplume]

How much work would it have taken for the campaigns to be given more player slots?

 

Presumably, more than was justified given the benefit. ;)

 

It's not just adding slots, but testing it works properly with multiple clients, and trying to scale the difficulty factor of the mission - a mission which is challenging for a player with an AI wingman or 3 may be trivial for two human players.

 

Plus, most MP groups would have at least one mission-maker capable of modifying or creating missions that suit their group's needs.

 

Besides, as far as I can tell, the campaign missions barely work in SP as is... :music_whistling:

[MadTommy]

My present random mission template has over a 100 triggers, and that is just the template.. so i know how to do it.. calling it simple is stretching the truth.

 

Grimes's example is easy.. but also useless for a mission of any depth or breadth. Everything can spawn or nothing can spawn, flip your coin, take your chances.

 

I use Weta43's version.. but it very quickly becomes very complicated. oh yeah.. its not random :P

[tyrspawn]

 

Besides, as far as I can tell, the campaign missions barely work in SP as is... :music_whistling:

 

Yeah, that's another issue I have with it. I have been CTDing frequently since the latest patch. So infuriating to crash right when you are about to get into a mission.

[Grimes]

Besides, as far as I can tell, the campaign missions barely work in SP as is... :music_whistling:

 

 

Even less so in MP by just adding client airframes to em. Freaking borked airbase AI.

 

Its not exactly an understatement to say that many features that work in SP are broken in MP. In that sense the OP has every right to complain about MP features. However mission builders can and have provided the solution to his original points 2 and 3 (poor quality/lack of volume). And to be perfectly honest that is to be expected. Over the years the vast majority of MP missions are created by the community, not Eagle Dynamics. And you know what, that's the way it should be.

 

oh yeah.. its not random

 

Selectively random is still random... its just more controlled. As for the simple examples, sure used by itself I could understand (but still not agree with) the argument of it being "useless", but used in conjunction with everything else it is a quick and effective means of providing an "X factor" to a given mission.

[EtherealN]

How much work would it have taken for the campaigns to be given more player slots?

 

More than you think. Way more. Like completely redesigning the entire campaign and MP codes.

 

As I said: your view is way too simplistic.

 

As for fanboy propaganda, I suspect I know a bit more about how this thing works than you do. Now if spending a lot of time on the product and previous products, and thus getting to know them and the technical problems underlying their development makes me a fanboy then I'm fairly proud of being a fanboy. ;)