Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

WRAITH, I don't think you read the thread carefully. Eagle Dynamics already stated that they want to make a DC -- they are just making it small steps at a time, because it is a massive undertaking and they need money in the meantime.

So, they will be releasing new planes and new modules to get some money. Each of these modules will bring us one step closer to a real DC like that of F4.

Instead of waiting for ED to do this, make your own DC project and run it.

We have been playing Crimean Incident dynamic campaign in FC1, now Georgian Incident in DCS/FC2, and with just few incidents everything is running and is very immersive. I wouldn't swap it for Falcon's DC engine ever, LOL. It actually saved my interest in FC2. It is the best online multiplayer flying I have ever been to.

Uh Wraith MP didn't do it. F4 was severely broken on release and the prolonged development decimated MP to the point they were bought up by Hasbro and gutted.

Fast forward 15 years later and it still isn't flawless. The ATC still generates meat grinder suicide missions causing a major attrition war with zero finesse.

I love flying BMS, but I don't for a second believe that a theater wide real time war simulation is financially viable.

Where you surprised when you read that the Dynamic Campaign developer would not have done the DC like it was in Falcon 4 if he knew then what he knows now? Or maybe you missed that interview?

Falcon 4 has had about 17 years of development in total, IIRC.

What surprises me though Microprose could do it, Free Falcon does it and BMS is doing it, so then why cant DCS do it as a commercial line.

...and where are the Falcon devs "as a commercial line" now?

That is very very important to remember. ED doesn't want to go the Microprose route.

...and where are the Falcon devs "as a commercial line" now?

 

That is very very important to remember. ED doesn't want to go the Microprose route.

It wasnt their fault. Hasbro managment sent whole MICROPROSE to the Sh..hole

Which is why I boycott Hasbro to this very day.

Where you surprised when you read that the Dynamic Campaign developer would not have done the DC like it was in Falcon 4 if he knew then what he knows now? Or maybe you missed that interview?

 

Falcon 4 has had about 17 years of development in total, IIRC.

I think the way ED is approaching it may be better. Or maybe Falcon's just needs to be more open? ED working its way through developing triggers and resource management will let us make better and more dynamic missions on its way to a dynamic missions.

I think a dynamic mission in some cases might be better than a dynamic campaign.

I don't know about what the BMS crowd is doing, I know they're working on some things.

As for ED, you're pretty much correct. The only caveat is that there is still a long way to go: AI development is needed to make use of a DC/DM, for example, aside from things that the DC system itself might need, and the team is pretty small. So it will be slow-going.

You are correct in that ED has given a lot of power to mission makers with the SSE, but this is not as easy to use a more developed ME, so there are always trade-offs. ED continues to work towards making the mission maker's life easier, but again ... small team, time needed.

I think the way ED is approaching it may be better. Or maybe Falcon's just needs to be more open? ED working its way through developing triggers and resource management will let us make better and more dynamic missions on its way to a dynamic missions.

 

I think a dynamic mission in some cases might be better than a dynamic campaign.

I have to admit I did not read all the pages But

personally i am not fly in Falcon,But it's a fact that "dynamic campaign" This is the part that Makes the difference between the DCS & falcon,The biggest mistake of ED is mmm...

They missed the "dynamic campaign".

But that ED

Dynamic Campaign - a must

I absolutely agree that an dynamic campaign is the next must step for DCS. Liked Falcon 4 a lot.

I don't really know whats the problem with it. With the mission editor you have possibility to manipulate / generate everything. It shouldn't be a big deal to combine everything to an dynamic campaign. Of course, it still needs some effort, but its worth. Maybe as an separate Module for DCS World.

If this campaign also supports multiplayer I would play the game much more. Right now I am missing an ongoing story. These single missions are good for training.

Been getting into BMS a fair bit with a few friends in MP. It's amazing how alive the DC makes everything seem. You're just a rather small cog in a very large machine which is an impression you never get in DCS. Yes you can build a mission to imply that sort of dynamic with a lot of effort in DCS, but most of the time, pretty much in most missions, if you fly outside the area of operations there is nothing out there. In BMS, 30 seconds after starting up the sim, you are in a dynamic large-scale operation with no effort on your part, it's created for you. You fly off track and you most certainly will encounter something. There is often considerable air traffic with other flight packages, the whole theatre is heaving. DC is coming to DCS bit by bit. If ED can manage invoking that sort of impression with the environment you are in that BMS does now then it would be a massive shift in the perception in what DCS is.

You can see them adding things that are leading to their mission of "dynamic" should be interesting to see where it goes.

Resource Manager very big key.

I know that the dynamic campaign hasn't been a priority for ED since the canned scenario is much better for real-world training (which is the primary source of funding for ED). That said, I would pay for an add-in dynamic campaign engine. With what DCS World is becoming, this program just screams for a Falcon 4.0 type persistent, dynamic campaign where you can just hop into any jet/helo on either side and dish out hate and discontent.

..., I would pay for an add-in dynamic campaign engine. With what DCS World is becoming, this program just screams for a Falcon 4.0 type persistent, dynamic campaign where you can just hop into any jet/helo on either side ...

Agree - I believe a lot people would pay extra for a dynamic campaign, me too.

Although I've never made and published a mission, I've fiddled a lot with the mission editor. I've examined some of the best missions people have made to see what they did and how they did it, and I've looked over a lot of documentation for it, including LUA.

Unfortunately the DCS mission editor itself is simply not that powerful, and I think this is a much bigger problem than the lack of a dynamic campaign. If the editor was good enough and open enough, it would be easy to create dynamic campaigns. I might point out that Rise of Flight has a 3rd party external dynamic campaign generator which works quite well, but not even that seems possible in DCS.

(I have some ideas for LUA scripting and an external dynamic campaign generator, but it would be a potentially engine-breaking nightmare at best.)

Hey. I dont know who it was but thanks a lot for the Falcon 4.0 BMS example. I try that campaign its awesome. I will change to BMS because the campaign is a lot of fun in coop. Thank!

Although I've never made and published a mission, I've fiddled a lot with the mission editor. I've examined some of the best missions people have made to see what they did and how they did it, and I've looked over a lot of documentation for it, including LUA.

 

Unfortunately the DCS mission editor itself is simply not that powerful, and I think this is a much bigger problem than the lack of a dynamic campaign. If the editor was good enough and open enough, it would be easy to create dynamic campaigns. I might point out that Rise of Flight has a 3rd party external dynamic campaign generator which works quite well, but not even that seems possible in DCS.

 

(I have some ideas for LUA scripting and an external dynamic campaign generator, but it would be a potentially engine-breaking nightmare at best.)

Why exactly is the DCS ME not powerful? It's one of the best (if not the best) mission editor I've ever seen. The only knock I can think of regarding an external campaign manager is that the miz format is binary, not text based.

I'm not calling you out; I guess I'm asking for clarification as to why the DCS ME is the issue, since you've obviously put a lot of thought into it.

My perspective is that we're almost there. Take a look at the Mission Generator guide, and then my comments. I think that the templates are the key to dynamic mission generation, and the campaign manager code is the only thing keeping us from a single player dynamic campaign. A multiplayer campaign like this would likely necessitate multiple clients in the same flight, and the ability to fly aircraft that are not necessarily designated as "client", but SP seems pretty close.

but not even that seems possible in DCS.

It is very much possible.

DCS ME is a semi-powerful, but ultra easy engine. Scripting (lua) is a powerful mission editor but harder to manage.

DCS is a nice scripted game. You can do wonderful things in single player.

But, some not implemented tools could kill the potential Semi-dynamic campaign.

Ex : The success Levels : -1x / 0 / +1x next mission

It should be possible to determie otherwise more easily like : This flag = automatic success, jump to X mission, not n-1, n+1.

Moreover, maybe it could introduce a new ME tool to say if next mission has to load certains (checkboxed) units depending some variable in the last mission.

Don't be wrong, with scripts, you CAN do a dynamic campaign. but:

1 : ultra-hard to code and impossible to debug

2 : requires 10Ghz intel's Skylake dual core.

Right now, we all know the weak link is the logbook and campaign progression. Apart that, DCS ME is really great.

Don't be wrong, with scripts, you CAN do a dynamic campaign. but:

1 : ultra-hard to code and impossible to debug

Yes, it is hard to code - especially if you want something that is GOOD and creates realistic missions - but it is not impossible to debug. Why would it be?

2 : requires 10Ghz intel's Skylake dual core.

Why would it require some majestic CPU?

The computations necessary are light enough that they could be done on a cell phone. The problem isn't computation power, the problem is designing a system that creates GOOD missions. Eagle Dynamics is working in this direction but is making sure to take it in manageable steps to ensure quality. DC's like IL2, ROF and Falcon aren't "enough".

Here's an example workflow for such a system:

1) Play mission.

2) System reads export of what happened during mission. (Already supported.)

3) System abstracts this as necessary and creates a new mission based on the before and possibly some general guidelines on the direction the war is supposed to take. (Very difficult to implement well.)

4) System creates a mission. (First steps implemented through Mission Generator and Supply system)

5) Back to step 1.

The only knock I can think of regarding an external campaign manager is that the miz format is binary, not text based.

Are you kidding? All of the files within .miz are LUA tables that one can easily modify.

Are you kidding? All of the files within .miz are LUA tables that one can easily modify.

Suspect he never tried opening a .miz with an unzip utility... :)