Flightsim with dynamic campaign in 1989...

[jabog32_zillion]

Sometimes I wonder why the campaign engine of some really old school flight sims rocked the house compared to lomac...I loved this sim and I would really like to play it again...

 

 

http://www.migman.com/ref/1980_combat/F16CombatPilot/amiga_03.htm

http://www.migman.com/ref/1980_combat/F16CombatPilot/F16CombatPilot.htm

 

http://www.nonowt.com/magfold/revsfol/f16pilot.html

 

http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/DBA1/F16CP2.html

[SUBS17]

Yes thats true, Combat Pilot was the first Flight Sim with both Dynamic Campaign and Multiplayer Coop and head to head. It was very simple and worked very well. How it worked was you had 1 Squadron of F-16s plus the pilots at various experience levels. You had a map divided in half with red and blue. As the SC you were the one who created the packages and planed the Squadrons missions. Extremely simple to do and once planned pick an aircraft and assign your pilot as flight lead. How I used to do it was load up with harms and durandels, attack SAM/AAA at airbases and then follow it up with a durandel run.

[Guest ThomasDWeiss]

I never quite understood this fixation with a dynamic campaign.

 

True that some SP missions can be tiresome, some can by very hard - like mine , but a dynamic campaign can be quite boring - take TAW, one that I really loved flying. It had what can be at best be called a limited dynamic campaign, after a while you knew what to expect, I ended up flying the same missions over and over again.

 

Anyone that created a mission, knows that, Lock On is after a while overwhelmed by scenarios with multiple AI units.

 

As it is today Lock On is an SP or MP flight sim - not a dynamic campaign one.

 

I flew countless Jane's F/A-18 missions, and never ever thought that a dynamic campaign was what I wanted. I enjoyed it 100%, so much so, that I ended up creating missions that are as much as possible like the ones I flew in F/A-18. I rather have a high-fidelity AFM, realistic Radar and AAM behavior sim like in Lock On than a simplified AFM - so-so Radar Falcon 4-type with a dynamic campaign.

 

And there is one thing that is great in SP missions - it allows you to hone your skills, try to fly better a given mission and so learn from your mistakes.

[mr_john_doe]

I think a Dynamic Campaign is extremely importan to the singleplayer aspect of a flight sim. Lo-Mac was my first "real" flight sim, and although I thought that the graphics were incredible, and the FM very good, I still felt that the game was extremely lacking in singleplayer, I found the missions boring, with little to none replayability. Then I tried Falcon 4 AF, and MAN! I was blew away by the complexity, both of the gameplay and the campaign. In F4 it really feels like you're not alone, because of all the other flights that are fighting the war with you, but in Lo-Mac it was always a limited number of aircrafts, in a confined space. I play F4 MUCH more than Lo-Mac, because it feels much more real, and is much more immersive, and I think a lot of that is because of the Dynamic Campaign

[jabog32_zillion]

I always thought of a dynamic campaign to be exactly the opposite of "boring" and i never felt it was repetive at all. A few reason imo it can not be repetive.

 

1. The situation can never be the same unless you are lucky and play it twice, for instance an OCA Strike (Airbase Strike) can not be repetive since after it's been successfull it's done with the airbase. And even after playing a campaign twice u need to be lucky to be assigned to the same OCA strike again...

Even a BARCAP (Airspace Patrol) up and down in station area (2 waypoints) sounds boring but can never be the same because it depends on how many hostile operational airbases and or scheduled flights are in the area and reach...

 

2. Depending on how you, yourself and you are playing planning and interfering with a logical Itelligence list of tasks sorted in a priority manner the campaign changes it's course of actions adjusting to your success... There is no need to interfer with the given order of tasks but if you do send the wrong flights to the wrong places you will produce a less efficient outcome...

 

3. The most boring way to play a dynamic campaign is to stay in your slot and do everything assigned to you. The most exciting way to play a dynamic campaign is to plan every unit move yourself mutating a flightsim into a tactical role play that gives you the power to decide every last move from Artillery Batallion 42 to A-10 SEAD flight Snake, which again when doing a bad job risks the security of Intercept flight F-15 Romulus... Hence a camapign is a VERY strategical operation.

 

For a programmer, giving all these unpredictable events it's a wonder anyone can accomplish make such a program and therefore it must be called a masterpiece of balancing and leveldesign if these terms fit the compexity after all.

 

In a typical falcon 4 campaign an estimated 600+ units (groups of vehicles) operate at any given time once it has started and reached a good running state which all depend in some way or another on each others win/loss conditions. There is no way normal linear action (traditional "if" based scripted action) could ever handle all possibilties.

 

And coming back to my initial posting it even more astonishes me anything like that could run in 1989 on 68000 processor...

 

:)

 

Edit:

 

Agreed to the advanced FM and superb garphics lockon has to offer, disagree to the "realisic" avionics and considering the amount of cpu time such a FM probably requires it is probably also the reason we can't have a dynamic campaign... I am very optimistic about the new clickable cockpit feature lockon has planned to introduce and think since 1.1 ED takes it's always preferred path of self publishing (big publishers have a lot to say in game design, many times ruining a vision) reducing arcade increasing simulation. A lot of great features in development, i guess and hope.

[Whisper]

Best immersive and non repetitive campaign ever? Operation Flashpoint.

Why? Because of dynamic campaign? Absolutely not!

Because of mission editor flexibility and capabilities.

 

LUA scripting > DC.

 

Thomas is spot on with his JFA-18 example

[D-Scythe]

Best immersive and non repetitive campaign ever? Operation Flashpoint.

Why? Because of dynamic campaign? Absolutely not!

Because of mission editor flexibility and capabilities.

 

LUA scripting > DC.

 

Thomas is spot on with his JFA-18 example

 

JF/A-18 had a semi-dynamic campaign. Plus the new Karelyska one that came out? The one that simulates a dynamic campaign? Awesome ;)

 

But I do agree, JF/A-18's semi-dynamic campaign was very good - better than most fully dynamic campaigns in many respects. But that was also because it had a very powerful mission builder to make it all possible :)

 

I would actually consider a powerful mission builder more important than a dynamic campaign engine currently for Lock On. It provides a good foundation, IMO.

[Floyd]

Sometimes I wonder why the campaign engine of some really old school flight sims rocked the house compared to lomac...

 

Because developers re-invent the wheel from time to time.

 

Falcon was designed with a "virtual universe" in mind and the pilots flying the planes are

only a small part in this universe. You can let the campaign running without flying one

mission or hop in the pit and "replace" the AI pilots, even if the flight is 2 minutes

from target.

 

Lomac (as a sequel to Flanker) follows the concept of single missions: jump in the

pit, fly mission, land, back to UI screen. No idea of replacing AI pilots, heck, even the

MP missions must be developed as such - and the campaigns are not MP capable.

IIRC SwingKid wrote that his campaign engine is SP only because Lomac does not

export results from MP missions.

 

 

Eh, before you start shooting at me about the bubble system in Falcon and boring

campaigns - i'm talking about concepts, not implementations, ok?

 

Btw, I've wondered why there is no multi-core CPU support in Lomac,

if it is so CPU hungry.

[Whisper]

JF/A-18 had a semi-dynamic campaign. Plus the new Karelyska one that came out? The one that simulates a dynamic campaign? Awesome ;)

 

But I do agree, JF/A-18's semi-dynamic campaign was very good - better than most fully dynamic campaigns in many respects. But that was also because it had a very powerful mission builder to make it all possible :)

 

I would actually consider a powerful mission builder more important than a dynamic campaign engine currently for Lock On. It provides a good foundation, IMO.

That's exactly the point, once you have a powerfull mission builder with wome kind of scripting system (and current LUA should only be the starting foundation of what it could be in the end), you don't need a DC anymore : mission builder users will create it! The outcome is far better.

So instead of trying to mimic other sims' DC (and bringing absolutely nothing new to air simulation genre), imho ED should focus on enhancing their mission builder and LUA scripting system.

JFA-18 was great, but lacked the scripting part. There's a big room for improvement currently, but contrary to a DC, the first parts are already implemented in LO, ED should only expand them. Add the possibility to create units from LUA scripts would be a good start. Force view for intro sceneries, etc... Give the tools to make units move via LUA.

[D-Scythe]

That's exactly the point, once you have a powerfull mission builder with wome kind of scripting system (and current LUA should only be the starting foundation of what it could be in the end), you don't need a DC anymore : mission builder users will create it! The outcome is far better.

So instead of trying to mimic other sims' DC (and bringing absolutely nothing new to air simulation genre), imho ED should focus on enhancing their mission builder and LUA scripting system.

JFA-18 was great, but lacked the scripting part. There's a big room for improvement currently, but contrary to a DC, the first parts are already implemented in LO, ED should only expand them. Add the possibility to create units from LUA scripts would be a good start. Force view for intro sceneries, etc... Give the tools to make units move via LUA.

 

Hmm, I dunno. IMO, melding a simplified version of an Falcon 4-type campaign engine with a powerful mission builder and some sort of scripting ability would be the ideal campaign system.

[Whisper]

Sure! But imho if a choice must be made, because of lack of manpower, for example, then I'd say to expand on existing possibilities, knowing the potential behind it, rather than trying to create something completely new (be it by completely re-building the mission system, very time consuming, or trying to bend the current one to fit the new concept, in general it doesn't give correct results)

 

In fact, what is F4 DC? Mainly, a "startup situation" (units list and positions), and a "tactical & strategical AI" deciding the objectives, missions, and assigning them. To simplify calculation, non-player related (ie far away from player), grouped units are "melded" into 1 entity acting as single object (bubble system). These single objects fight each others and fullfill tasks assigned to them by tactical AI decision system.

Give me the LUA scripting I described above, and I do this (well, I think I can :) ). For only the manpower of expanding LUA, you have as a bonus a DC.

You don't even need to tweak the mission system into a "neverending mission" a la F4, because you can save situation to HDD at end of mission, and retrieve them and rebuild the mission through scripting for the next one.

 

Yes, it is relying on players to create DC, but it gives us a complete freedom to do whatever we want. From what one can see from OFP, which has only a semi-complete scripting system (for example, no HDD operation possible with OFP, so no DC :( ), you can do absolutely awesome things.

 

And I'll insist, the tool is already there, LUA is already integrated in game. Perhaps I'm dreaming about the possibilities it can give, but imho it's just a matter of implementing LUA functions having an impact in-game (unit creation, movement, GUI element displaying possibility (to choose your flight, for example), etc...)

[Floyd]

Give me the LUA scripting I described above, and I do this (well, I think I can :) ). For only the manpower of expanding LUA, you have as a bonus a DC.

 

Before we all can enjoy the fruits of your hard work, ED should bring the AI into shape.

Have fun reading about the AI there:

http://lockoncampaign.com:8811/board/index.php?a=topic&t=32

 

I'm not sure if anything had been improved in the last addon/patches.

[Caretaker]

And I'll insist, the tool is already there, LUA is already integrated in game. Perhaps I'm dreaming about the possibilities it can give, but imho it's just a matter of implementing LUA functions having an impact in-game (unit creation, movement, GUI element displaying possibility (to choose your flight, for example), etc...)

 

Not that simple I'm afraid ;) LUA scripts would have to be integrated a lot more into the whole framework compated to now. Still lots of work to do for the devs - just consider the impact of dynamic object additions at mission runtime for the track recorder for example. Not that this couldn't be solved, but there are certainly more dependencies that make this complicated :)

 

Not that I wouldn't love to have it though ;) Scripting possibilities to determine AI decision makings would be a dream come true for me. Combined with randomization options, that would already go a long way in creating the dynamic environment we're talking about here.

 

What's special about Falcon4's dynamic campaign is that it's running in real-time, and that it can cope with much larger amounts of units overall. The first point is more of a luxury to me that isn't really required for a dynamic campaign anyway. The second point of course makes quite a difference but isn't trivial to implement. Even such a "bubble" system for simplified calculation of AI behaviour isn't really mandatory for a DC, but the scope of missions is reduced a lot without it.

 

With a mission system as dynamic as in Jane's F/A-18, and a way to automatically create such dynamic missions by analyzing the last mission's results, we'd have all tools needed to generate a mission/campaign system in a league of its own. If you add in events like sound file playback options, even things like complex ATC or real FAC operations could be produced entirely by us without ED having to take care of this... ;)

[Dudikoff]

I totally agree! We need a more powerful mission editor and scripting. I'd easily give up on a F4 type of campaign for some sort of semi-dynamic one, like for instance, in F-14 Fleet Defender. For instance, we need means to make track of the losses on both sides which would reflect itself in the later missions. For instance, if there is a squad of some 10 planes of some type which are a high threat and you manage to knock them all out, you have the reward that they don't appear anymore later on. Same for SAMs, etc.

[Whisper]

Before we all can enjoy the fruits of your hard work, ED should bring the AI into shape.

Have fun reading about the AI there:

http://lockoncampaign.com:8811/board/index.php?a=topic&t=32

 

I'm not sure if anything had been improved in the last addon/patches.

Can't read port 8811 behind company firewalls :(

And what I meant is more than I see what can be done to produce it given the correct tools, not really that I could do it (at least not alone :P )

 

And IA performance is not really the subject. Whatever the game system, mission based, DC, etc... IA poorly programmed will behave poorly in a DC or single mission.

With LUA scripting, you could even have the possibility to force AI actions, so to have your own AI behaviour ;)

[Caretaker]

I'm not sure if anything had been improved in the last addon/patches.

 

Oh, it has. Lots of smaller improvements already that aren't always too obvious, and of course there are still enough issues left. But there's progress.

 

Take 1.11 for example: finally ground units don't suffer the "exclusive targeting" issue anymore, when only one object of a group would fire at one enemy unit. Previously, it didn't make a difference if you flew over one Shilka or a group of 10 - only one would fire at you anyway. Try it with 1.11 now, quite a difference ;)

 

Apart from such issues, it's the "strategic behaviour" that bothers me (but that's an issue in pretty much every sim). Stuff like making a CAP flight aware of enemy SAM sites is very hard to code, which is why I really prefer to have triggers to control that (like having such a flight break off the pursuit of enemy planes if they fly too far away from their waypoint).

[Guest ruggbutt]

I'm finding that LMR really makes a big difference in both s/p and m/p. I've been testing out some missions from an LMR mission pack I'm making and it's a huge difference from what I've been used to the past 2 years. For instance the mission we flew several times last night was an EWR site that hadn't gone active. It had supply trucks and some APC's parked near an oil storage facility. For good measure I threw in a couple of Iglas and a couple Shilkas. There were also some enemy shipping. As we're inbound to target there's a tank battle between T80's and M1's. The several times we flew it were entirely different. Once the Iglas shot down a wingman. Another time a Shilka got one of my guys rolling in with Mk82's. Another time no Shilkas at all. It seems the pair of Tornados that were randomized as a gamestart entity took the Shilkas out before we entered the area. Additionally, I have a Smerch randomized and once out of 4 times did our airfield get rocketed as we were spooling up our engines.

 

And that was just the ground units. Once the Su27's spawned in between our CAP and shot 2 of us down. Another time the F18's spotted the Mig29's and smoked them before they got close to our waypoint flights. Another time I sent our flight off and I was prepared to delay a Mig29 so they could get to the target. It flew within our Patriot battery's engagement zone. I turned back onto waypoint and put ordnance on target. The only thing that was the same was the targets and target area. LMR is a step in the right direction. I'd love to see something like this implemented into the mission editor, at the very least.

 

If any of you are interested in trying out some of these missions, PM me. We fly most every night.

[Trident]

I've tended to view campaign systems in general as a very secondary consideration in the past, but my position has changed. I've started flying EECH again, with all those mods that remove the most serious issues of the original sim, and it has shown me the gameplay value of a dynamic campaign. One of the most important things about it is immersion.

 

The fact that other units are operating independantly from you and that the situation is never predictable are factors that are mentioned very often in this regard. IMHO however, while these things certainly contribute to suspension of disbelief, they are not the primary reason for dynamic campaigns being superiour to other systems (afterall, well designed single-missions and randomization features can provide the same effect, see BSO and JF/A-18). The desicive feature for me is the almost complete absence of what I like to call "smoke & mirrors".

 

As an example, consider what happens if you stray from your intended path in a strictly linear mission, you may be able to out-flank your enemies by flying around the battle-field planned by the mission designer or encounter airdefenses which were very obviously placed there for a single purpose: to keep you confined to the route envisioned by the designer. Immersion comes crashing down when that happens and it also places an unrealistic limit on your freedom to make your own tactical desicions. I think a good comparison is SFM vs. AFM - the difference in regular flight is negligible, but simmers have an uncanny knack for pushing anything to its limits and they will quickly notice (and *love*) the almost total lack of any "smoke & mirrors" with the AFM :)

 

There is another advantage with dynamic campaigns that I would rate far higher than those busy-skies-and-replayability arguments I mentioned initially (and which are usually touted by proponents of dynamic campaings): compared to linear campaigns you are far less likely to get stuck or end up frustrated. For instance I absolutely suck at flying helos, yet my EECH sessions (while they are less frequent) last a lot longer on average than my LOMAC flights. The reason is simple, if I fail a mission (usually by CFIT ;) ) it is no big deal - I can just move on and fly another mission instead of having to replay the same one all over again. This is particularly important for newbies (such as me when it comes to helos) who can build skills and experience gradually without any tedious repetition. It also eases the frustration of crashing on the way home from what was, up to that point, a fairly successful mission (or failing it due to outside factors such as stupid AI) as the results are not lost.

[Sinner6]

Nothing would please me more than for LOMAC to have a mission editor like JF18's.

[DayGlow]

F4's DC is amazing, but it is far from perfect. The amount of attrition is sky high as the computer continuously generates suicide missions for both sides. To fly a proper mission in the game you have to remap all the steer-points to avoid threats. Unfortuantly it's impossible to do that for every AI flight on both sides for every mission. The result is that planes are dropping from the sky like flies.

 

The DC is huge and immersive, but far from realistic.

[SUBS17]

Lockons editior is already better than JF18;) , the best comparrison for lockon is Longbow2s DC for Tank Killers. The Battlefield is fought not at a strategic level like F4 but at the smaller level of Anti-armour enviroment. For the DC to be created the units have to be created into Battalion level for a start. This makes AI manouvering and reaction much easier to implement since as alot of units are as 1 group. Of course the ultimate for TK is a DC similar level to LB2s Battlefield with TopGuns Fire at Wills immersion. With the Battalions setup and a definite front line set one side is advanced on the other and fighting commences. Mission packages are only visible for 1 Squadron that the player is using to simplify everything and use automatic AI packages for the rest.

[Sinner6]

If lock ons editor is better than Janes F18, than how come I am having such trouble adding random events and triggers? Why can I not define borders and a FLOT?

 

Though I do concede the biggest area of concern is the AI by far.

[D-Scythe]

Lockons editior is already better than JF18 ;)

 

I guess everyone's entitled to their own opinion :p

[Trident]

The DC is huge and immersive, but far from realistic.

 

Agree, inspite of my change in attitude towards dynamic campaigns I'm not having any illusions about that (unlike many others who support DCs, especially from the F4 camp). While EECH is even worse as far as realism goes, as far as I can tell, I still love playing it. The most "realistic" option would be scripted missions that are designed to replicate real sorties, like the Desert Storm scenarios in JF-15 I believe. Such missions are great as a single mission challenge to satisfy historically interested players, but when they are used to create a campaign the usual disadvantages apply.

 

Besides, like Floyd said, there's no need for ED to emulate Falcon's campaign in every respect. Infact, from what I can gather the system is unnecessarily complex in some ways. I don't think it needs to be that intricate to be realistic. A simplified implementation would likely reduce the number of AI issues, increase performance and be more transparent to the player. That last point is also something I like about EECH, it's rather easy to understand how the system works, so it is very obvious what the best course of action is most of the time.

 

One thing I think is a must is real-time campaign progress though. It's the "smoke & mirrors" thing again, I can imagine all kinds of consistency issues with a turn based system if the player does not stick to the timing schedule calculated by the campaign engine ;)

[Floyd]

The DC is huge and immersive, but far from realistic.

 

Yep, but it has one big advantage: it exists and one can fly and play it today.

 

IIRC Lomac will come to an end with 1.2, 1.3 or whatever they'll name it.

What i see far from realistic are the ideas for mission builder and DC for Lomac.

But one can always dream, of course.