OK ED... Anytime your ready to announce the next aircraft

[CADelta]

Random Mission Generator.

 

Online version of that? Thank you very much Sir. :smilewink:

[Oceandar]

Just out of pure curiosity, how often have you actually played through a falcon 4 campaign?

 

Heh.....everyday in my free time. Ask my wife if you dont believe me lol.

 

Not all simmer can play online because not all simmer has reliable internet connection !

DC all the way hehehe :D

[Cali]

Goes and grabs his popcorn

[159th_Viper]

Online version of that? Thank you very much Sir. :smilewink:

 

Adapt the mission from player to client ;)

 

Cm'On Gents - the amount of tools that are available to all, yet are overlooked in favour of a good moan about 'what could have been/Oh we miss a DC'. I tell you, if the energy that goes into the DC threads gets channelled into understanding the current ME then the quality and quantity of missions/campaigns will sky-rocket, effectively rendering a DC superfluous.

 

Oh well, we'll get there one day :pilotfly:

[miguelaco]

Well, it's not the tools or the lack of dedication. IMHO DC offers much more than a way to auto-generate missions. You are part of a war and that makes it much more immersive. You cannot achieve that with a random mission generator.

[CADelta]

Well, it's not the tools or the lack of dedication. IMHO DC offers much more than a way to auto-generate missions. You are part of a war and that makes it much more immersive. You cannot achieve that with a random mission generator.

 

Couldn't have put this better myself.

 

/Krycek

[Eddie]

...You are part of a war and that makes it much more immersive. You cannot achieve that with a random mission generator.

 

What do you think a DC engine is? :huh:

 

DCs don't do a very good job of making you feel like you're part of a 'realistic' war either. At least none made to date anyway. The only way to make a realistic combat scenario is to use a proper mission editor like we currently have, of course that means it takes time. Building a AI engine to do the same is a monumental undertaking. It something that'll come, but it's going to take a very long time.

[NoJoe]

So, back to the issue at hand; waiting for the next DCS plane... :P

 

While I'm as excited as the rest of you to see what it is, I still have a ways to go with the A-10C. And not to forget the teasers we've gotten of the new CBU-97 modelling!

 

And the more I bury my head in learning the A-10C, the more I love that plane. Sure, a new pointy jet will be exciting. But I want to get *good* with the Hawg. No, wait, not "good"... I want to be AMAZING at flying the Hawg! :D

 

There, a little personal motivation from NoJoe. :lol:

[159th_Viper]

.....IMHO DC offers much more than a way to auto-generate missions. You are part of a war and that makes it much more immersive....

 

That's make-believe ;)

 

IRL you've got a job to do and you do it. As a pilot you'll never know the 'bigger picture'. Then again, if you prefer make-believe (DC) as opposed to reality then so be it. It is, after all, entertainment.

 

Me - I'll err on the side of real.

[miguelaco]

What do you think a DC engine is? :huh:

 

DCs don't do a very good job of making you feel like you're part of a 'realistic' war either. At least none made to date anyway. The only way to make a realistic combat scenario is to use a proper mission editor like we currently have, of course that means it takes time. Building a AI engine to do the same is a monumental undertaking. It something that'll come, but it's going to take a very long time.

 

A DC engine is not a random mission generator. It's not the best term to describe it, you're losing many features in the way. Falcon engine is far from perfect, but you can't call it a random mission generator. On the other side I still prefer a flawed DC engine that makes you feel part of something than a bunch of unrelated missions.

 

My main concern with a sim is how the plane flies and how the battlefield responds to my actions. In that respect, DCS-A10C is unbeatable, but with the great level we have now, I think ED should focus on completing this piece of art with something that could leverage the immersion factor.

[miguelaco]

That's make-believe ;)

 

IRL you've got a job to do and you do it. As a pilot you'll never know the 'bigger picture'. Then again, if you prefer make-believe (DC) as opposed to reality then so be it. It is, after all, entertainment.

 

Me - I'll err on the side of real.

 

Sorry, I don't see how having a DC engine could make the software unrealistic. I think, like many others, that it would be fun. Nothing more, nothing less. You'll still have ME and mission generator if you don't want to see the bigger picture.

[Eddie]

A DC engine is not a random mission generator. It's not the best term to describe it, you're losing many features in the way. Falcon engine is far from perfect, but you can't call it a random mission generator. On the other side I still prefer a flawed DC engine that makes you feel part of something than a bunch of unrelated missions.

 

My main concern with a sim is how the plane flies and how the battlefield responds to my actions. In that respect, DCS-A10C is unbeatable, but with the great level we have now, I think ED should focus on completing this piece of art with something that could leverage the immersion factor.

 

You're thinking about F4, the campaign engine in F4 is more than a DC, it's a real time campaign engine not just a dynamic campaign engine. This is part of the problem, people think these are two terms for the same thing when in fact they are not.

 

A DC does not need to be real time to be dynamic in nature.

 

Sorry, I don't see how having a DC engine could make the software unrealistic. I think, like many others, that it would be fun. Nothing more, nothing less. You'll still have ME and mission generator if you don't want to see the bigger picture.

 

Look at Falcon's campaign engine, while it might be fun to play from a entertainment perspective, it is far from realistic in many areas. A lot of the missions it generates are flat out daft, and the strategic aspects of the campaign engine's AI are flawed.

[159th_Viper]

Sorry, I don't see how having a DC engine could make the software unrealistic.....

 

Who said anything about software. I'm talking about the so-called 'war' that some deem realistic as portrayed by the DC.

 

 

I think, like many others, that it would be fun. Nothing more, nothing less

 

And who's prepared to finance said 'fun'? Just not viable, is it?

 

 

....if you don't want to see the bigger picture.

 

Yeah - there's the diversion from reality I'm speaking about again. I'm glad DCS is firmly grounded :)

[miguelaco]

You're thinking about F4, the campaign engine in F4 is more than a DC, it's a real time campaign engine not just a dynamic campaign engine. This is part of the problem, people think these are two terms for the same thing when in fact they are not.

 

A DC does not need to be real time to be dynamic in nature.

 

 

 

Look at Falcon's campaign engine, while it might be fun to play from a entertainment perspective, it is far from realistic in many areas. A lot of the missions it generates are flat out daft, and the strategic aspects of the campaign engine's AI are flawed.

 

You are right with DC vs real time campaign engine. Replace DC with "real time campaign engine" in my previous posts and you'll see my point.

 

While we have a realistic flying experience I don't care so much about realistic real time campaign engine. I'd priorize the entertainment perspective over realistic experience for now.

[EtherealN]

Miguelaco, that is the point though: for those of us who get our entertainment through trying to be realistic the F4 style engine is almost worthless.

 

Personally i think this is largely a online versus offline conflict.

[miguelaco]

Miguelaco, that is the point though: for those of us who get our entertainment through trying to be realistic the F4 style engine is almost worthless.

 

Personally i think this is largely a online versus offline conflict.

 

I actually like the realism as much as you and there are many falconeers out there that will subscribe this. However, they enjoy the F4 style engine and they don't think it's worthless.

[EtherealN]

Respectfully, no, you don't.

 

F4 style DC is worthless. It creates stupid scenarios, the AI tasking is retarded, and it does absolutely nothing towards simulating a real conflict. If your motivation is realism, that DC does nothing. What it offers is the same type of immersion that battlefield offers; nothing wrong there, i like BF, but it hasl nothing to do with realism.

[miguelaco]

Respectfully, no, you don't.

 

F4 style DC is worthless. It creates stupid scenarios, the AI tasking is retarded, and it does absolutely nothing towards simulating a real conflict. If your motivation is realism, that DC does nothing. What it offers is the same type of immersion that battlefield offers; nothing wrong there, i like BF, but it hasl nothing to do with realism.

 

Ok, I'll give up argumenting about that, it is very clear that F4 DC is worse than nothing.

[cichlidfan]

...and BMS has the most annoying GUI in the history of pc games.

 

Can we have nominees for the worst soundtrack, please!:D

[GGTharos]

Did you maybe forget the release of FC2 somewhere inbetween there?

 

Release dates of previous DCS-modules:

BS: 12/2008

A10: 02/2011

 

Based on that, I'd say we can expect next DCS-module in early 2013. Probably even later, because amount of work is increasing with every new addition (all those previous modules must be updated to make them compatible with new one)...

[EtherealN]

Ok, I'll give up argumenting about that, it is very clear that F4 DC is worse than nothing.

 

Not worse than nothing, but completely irrelevant for realism.

[Boberro]

Cmon, it is thread mainly about DCS.... Falcon mafia as always have to nag about no DC in DCS forgetting in Falcon's DC is neither realistic war nor worthy to copy. Also DC is the only one of the many parts which game consist.

[leafer]

I should have known the F4 groupies would be in future DCS module thread. Note to self, they're everywhere except flying F4...

[miguelaco]

You're both wrong. You should inform yourself before making those stupid assumptions. I'm not falcon mafia nor groupie. If you look at my previous messages you should see that I'm deeply involved into testing and flying this simulator. I'm part of a virtual squadron that flies both F4 and DCS: A-10C and I'm only active on A-10C wing because I like it more. It's just that my admiration for this sim doesn't prevent me to see good things on the other.

 

And at least it's my opinion, if you like it or not. I'm not here to convince. You've made wrong assumptions about my preferences and put me automatically into stupid groups.

 

My last post on this thread. I'll have more care in the future to not name Falcon in these forums.

[Rhinox]

Did you maybe forget the release of FC2 somewhere inbetween there?

No, I did not. I was talking about DCS, and AFAIK FC2 is not part of DCS-series (even if it introduced LOFC2/DCS:BS compatibility)...