Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

I hope this question hasn't been asked allready. I used the search button.. but i found only posts where the word "dynamic campaign" are in.

Since i have been played TAW and Falcon i was verry excited about the future fighterjet games where going. A full Dynamic campaign in those games made me totally addicted to them. My toughts after those 2 succesfull games with a full dynamic campaign every Simm made after those would get one.

To my surprise and disapointment (understatement) none was in Lock On! I was shocked. Than i tought they might put it in a later update. But it never came. So i put my hopes on DCS.... Again no Full Dynamic campaign

I can't see the reasoning in not including a Dynamic Campaign in a game like this. Is it techically to hard? If so than why could TAW do it in 1999 with computers 20 times less powerfull than we have now. Is it because everybody wants fancy Graphics instead of immersive gameplay?

What is a fighter Simm without the full imersion of a Dynamic Campaign? For me its just single missions that are slightly different in setup everytime... It gets boring really quick (but i love fighterjets to much to not fly it at all).

How is it possible that those other games have a full dynamic campaign and DCS is still with the old fasion single missions? In my opinion thats pretty sad. Me and alot of others loved sititng in the command room of TAW and see how the war progressed.. The AWACSes and refuelers actually had a meaning instead of showing of your skill to other pilots... AWACs in FC2 and DCS are verry anoying and refuel planes are useless cause in most cases you don't run out of fuel, unless you construct a mission around it. How much more fun you could have with this game if a DyCa was actually included witht DCS. It would instantly make this game the best Flight Simm ever created.

I alway's say to my friends... If i had 10 million dollars today i would buy the TAW or Falcon License and totally rebuild those games to today standards cause i can't wait anymore till i can finally play a flight simm like in the old day's with DCS Graphics.

If i need to i wil even start a petition cause it hurts not to have a Dynamic Campaign in this game while it's fully possible to include one. How many signatures would we need? In my opinion not only the flyable jets make a fighterjet Flight Simm... but also the immersion and feeling you get flying in a actual Virtual war where every failed or succeeded mission counts to win the war.

I beg you DCS... Please answer this cause it would mean alot to me (and others) to have a full dynamic Campaign in this game.

I would do anything and i mean anything to see something back like this "TAW war room". Hmm my pic stopepd working... here the URL: http://www.combatsim.com/htm/nov99/jpg2/taw-ally.jpg

I would do anything and i mean anything to see something back like this "TAW war room".

Hmm...

More seriously, this HAS been asked and discussed countless times. Eagle Dynamics has historically focused on the development of unit AI and the mission editor as tools to create realistic and interesting mission environments. Both of these areas have been advanced significantly in the DCS series, starting with Black Shark and now continuing with Warthog. DCS: A-10C is also introducing a new mission generator system, which we feel is another big step toward a more dynamic and suspenseful mission environment. As you can see, there is a kind of linear growth pattern here and we would like to continue further on this development path to eventually build a dynamic campaign system or something close to it.

[...]

Please do some more research.:) Granted, the info is a bit hard to find on the forum.

In short, a dynamic campaign is a terribly costly thing for a small developer like ED to realize (long development time, probably not in relation to additional returns generated by the work). Also, IMHO, the Falcon campaign engine does not work like it should. It's more of a wreck, to be exact.

ED don't want to supply you with a half arsed campaign engine, so what they are trying to do is realize it in increments with every module. The dynamic mission generator in DCSW is the first step.

Edit: Take it from the big guy :D

Frst of all sorry that i could not find those other posts

HMM i disagree that the Falcon AF Dynamic campaign is half arsed..... It's not perfect.. But what is? I myself and alot of others never had major problems with it or major frustrations. I think alot of other people agree, atleast the ones i talked to. And because the dynamic campaign in TAW and Falcon AF they became as great as they are now. (incase of Falcon the full useable cocpit helped also)

I also think a mission generator is way to simple for a Flight Simm like this and doesn't bring the immersion you have like in TAW and Falcon AF where you could see the war progress in real time and you ahd to respond on that.

I was thinking just delay another high fidelity aircraft and put some effort in a dynamic Campaign. I tought you guy's had alot more money than DID TAW and Falcon AF had back in the day's. How long can it take to develop a dynamic campaign? You allready have the aircraft,Ground Forces and the terrain. And you guy's allready did a great job with the AI.

Offocurse i don't know anything about the costs and development time. But i think it's just an excuse not to include a dynamic campaign. But one thing i know for sure.. The numbers of copy's being sold will sky rocket.

I'm sorry if i went to far... But for some reason with these individual missions i don't have the feeling i actually fly a mission. Every mission now is liek..."Oww okay.. its done.. Nice" Now lets go drink some beer. With TAW and Falcon AF we could fly for hours and hours cause you wanted to win that dam war. You actually had the feeling you contributed to the war. And you didn't had the feeling you are the most importend pilot of the whole game. You actually wanted to keep your AI pilots allive when playing the dynamic campaign in single player. Right now alot of virtual pilots can't care less if that other AI strike/fighter group gets killed. You don't need them anyway on your way home.

And another thing that was fantastic in TAW and Falcon AF is that you could fly with a realistic strike package... "4 Wild weasel, 4 escort, 4 strike jets". And offcourse the thrill of defending your airfield when you had to Scramble.

With these single missions it doesn't happen spontaniously annymore... Everything is scripted. I know exactly what is going to happen when starting up a new mission. And all the aircraft and radio traffic you have in a dynamic campaign also makes it a unique experience. A dynamic mission generator will not even come close to such a immersion...

A hell i might just have to wait with buying another Flight Simm till you guy's eventually come up with a Dynamic Campaign in DCS, or another developer comes up with a piece of art like they have in TAW and Falcon AF...

^^^

I can't respond on development costs etc, but actions speak louder than words. Obviously the dynamic campaign would be great, but seeing as ED hasn't supplied one as of yet probably means there are some complications or areas inside development that aren't "ready yet". The meticulous details the series has given us with regards to avionics and FM but no "dynamic campaign" leads me to believe there is a VERY good reason why they don't have one yet.

I don't know the reason, I don't care really...but there IS a reason. Seeing the comments from various members of the ED team I get a good sense of it, and no assuming because TAW and Falcon AF had one means it should be "easy". Those are totally different simulations with different engine, AI etc.

I'm not sure if you're "threatening" or not, but by you saying you're not going to buy another module until a dynamic campaign comes out will not get you a dynamic campaign sooner. If anything you will miss out on what is so far one of the best desktop combat simulations packages available. This is of course just MY opinion on the matter, but if you're going to compare technical elements of a video game to "ART" I'd have to say DCS series thus far is a masterpiece. But just like anything ART, not everyone will agree :P.

With these single missions it doesn't happen spontaniously annymore... Everything is scripted. I know exactly what is going to happen when starting up a new mission. And all the aircraft and radio traffic you have in a dynamic campaign also makes it a unique experience. A dynamic mission generator will not even come close to such a immersion...

Really? What do you think a dynamic campaign is other than a glorified dynamic mission generator?

I suggest you try learning how to implement one yourself, then maybe, just maybe you'll be able to come back and answer your own question. It's funny that it tends to have to come down to this, but people don't seem to 'get it' until they try it themselves. It is quite the complicated task and not worth dropping everything else just to make that happen.

A hell i might just have to wait with buying another Flight Simm till you guy's eventually come up with a Dynamic Campaign in DCS, or another developer comes up with a piece of art like they have in TAW and Falcon AF...

Yeah, good luck with that :)

There is considerable power in the campaign builder/system that comes with DCS: A10C, just nobody has used it yet to it full potential -- not even close in fact.

You can, as a campaign builder, create a VERY compelling moving FLOT, peppered with random events and units. OK, you don't have damage tracking, or the ability to carry any data from one mission to the next (except just the previous mission score), so there are a some real limitations for building a true war-of-attrition campaign like in F4. However that could come in time, through use of lua and other methods of tracking mission variables and outcomes. I think the mission generator (which A10C has added, and FC2 did not have) is probably of a technical step in that direction.

F4 is first and foremost a war simulator with a jet sim built into it, and it is pretty unique in that regard. You as the player get a little window of time to get in the jet and go participate in the simulated hostilies, but those events keep going before, during and after your flight, and the sim tracks them all, right down to individual force manning levels, supplies, movements, etc. No other sim does that, at least that I am aware of.

EDIT -- one additional comment, something I just thought of -- how many add-on theaters in F4 actually have a viable campaign that works? 3 or 4, if that? Basically you got Korea and the Adriatic, and the rest are pretty lacking. The structure of that sim was not built to allow for expansion. So the beauty of what DCS will have, when it does finally offer something approaching a dynamic campaign, will be the ability to add theatres without porking your campaign engine. Personally I am just not super terribly excited about flying my warthog over Georgia, but Nevada is in the works (again, a training environment mostly) and I believe it won't be long before we have Afghanistan and possibly other places (imagine Korea), so for now Georgia is a good working existing theater in which to learn to fly this baby. And when those new theatres do come out, we will have a campaign system that functions properly.

Ripcord

Really? What do you think a dynamic campaign is other than a glorified dynamic mission generator?

Don't agree with this 100%, but I think that is the route DCS is taking and that is fine, as it has advantages.

I think F4 is a jet sim placed inside a war simulator, and clearly the DCS series is not going to be that -- and maybe that is a good thing, so that we will have more third party content and more theatres to fly in.

As long as the eventual 'glorification' of the mission generator includes the ability to track enough relevant aspects of the ground war, we will have a damn good dynamic campaign. Relevant aspects should include damage tracking (at least for fixed objects like buildings and strutures and fixed air defenses and radars) and movement of units, and resupply. Just randomly generating a ton of missions isn't dynamic -- they need to tie together based on outcome and specific variables being tracked inside those missions. DCS is on the right track there, I think.

Ripcord

ED has a plan for dynamic mission generation which was not entirely put into implementation in A-10C due to resource constraints. That's all I'll say and hope the powers that be won't zap me.

As you can see, a host of new features are added with each iteration DCS. While the OP complains that it's all graphics, some people like Ripcord have seen that there are significant improvements in the ME as well - and I don't mean little bug fixes, I mean real, useable, new features.

More interesting is lack of dedicated server option than constantly reminded and getting bored dynamic campaign by Falcon luvers. It is nice feature too but...

some people like Ripcord have seen that there are significant improvements in the ME as well - and I don't mean little bug fixes, I mean real, useable, new features.

The improvements to the ME aren't significant.

They're huge. All the new triggers, THE ABILITY TO SCRIPT, better ground unit AI, battle commander (no more dumb ground AI- a human controls it now!), just to list a FEW... there are amazing improvements in A-10C.

 

I alway's say to my friends... If i had 10 million dollars today i would buy the TAW or Falcon License and totally rebuild those games to today standards cause i can't wait anymore till i can finally play a flight simm like in the old day's with DCS Graphics.

 

I hear what you are saying, but the dynamic mission generator is quite impressive and extremely immersive enabling the feel of a dynamic campaign without resorting to the use of a bubble to give the illusion that you are actually flying in a dynamic campaign.

To create a full fledged dynamic campaign with the level of realism and "graphics" DCS brings to the table, you would need 10 million dollars to afford the super personal computer needed to run it and be able to see everything going on the entire theatre and not just little colored boxes moving around a mission map.

The dynamic mission generator is fantastic and a big step forward and perhaps when the standard systems reach enough power to implement a dynamic campaign DCS will put the limited resources ( in the grand scheme of things) behind the dev. of a dynamic campaign.

Really? What do you think a dynamic campaign is other than a glorified dynamic mission generator?

This is the exact sort of archaic thinking that made IL-2 generated missions so horrible. If your vocabulary is at this level then it reflects a narrow view point. Falcon brought the suitable mindset to the task of ongoing air operations, you have to build and run an entire war and only then can you add the ability for the player to participate. DCS on the other hand is a "scenario so you have something to do with your aircraft."

Now you don't actually have to have a literal campaign for this mindset to be implemented. Forget campaign for a second and just focus on the standard DCS mission-instance. What if "start mission" and "join aircraft" were two different buttons? What if you could start the mission and choose to join it in "3D" an hour later? What if you could leave the aircraft, go back to the scenario overview, and then return to the aircraft?

This is the exact sort of archaic thinking that made IL-2 generated missions so horrible. If your vocabulary is at this level then it reflects a narrow view point. Falcon brought the suitable mindset to the task of ongoing air operations, you have to build and run an entire war and only then can you add the ability for the player to participate. DCS on the other hand is a "scenario so you have something to do with your aircraft."

 

Now you don't actually have to have a literal campaign for this mindset to be implemented. Forget campaign for a second and just focus on the standard DCS mission-instance. What if "start mission" and "join aircraft" were two different buttons? What if you could start the mission and choose to join it in "3D" an hour later? What if you could leave the aircraft, go back to the scenario overview, and then return to the aircraft?

I would not read too much in to that comment there, Fred -- you can see that this mission generator feature is a stepping stone to get to the next stage of development. The guys at DCS are well aware of what all the other sims were that came before, I think they will get it right. Just they can't do it all at once, they have to prioritize and good for them.

Hey, they didn't have to even release a mission generator at all, but they did. I am glad for that, as it lets us see their progress.

Ripcord

To create a full fledged dynamic campaign with the level of realism and "graphics" DCS brings to the table, you would need 10 million dollars to afford the super personal computer needed to run it and be able to see everything going on the entire theatre and not just little colored boxes moving around a mission map.

Really, you think so? How then did F4 do it back in the day?

In mind, you are just tracking a number of variables from one mission to the next.

First you start out with a map template and location of all your units, your order of battle (OOB). No different than creating a mission in your ME right now -- except at the start of the campaign, SOMETHING has to track all these units, their locations, their goals/objectives, and their status (dead/alive, etc).

See in my view (oversimplied I realize), we is lacking isn't anything that needs to be running while the missions is actually being played. What is lacking is the ability to take the status/location/other variables for all these units at the end of the first mission and WRITE that to a file somewhere, which is then fed into a separate campaign program that takes those inputs, and continues to run the war simulation for a period of time until you once again brief for your next mission. So if you had a SU-27 over X and two companies of tanks and BTRs advancing on Y at the end of your LAST MISSION, then you should be able to see those units again in your NEXT MISSION -- well OK the Su-27 flight will have gone RTB by then but the simulation part of the game between missions will manage that.

I kinda think that, in providing this mission generator, they have demonstrated their ability to WRITE units to the mission, based on an existing template. I suspect they could pretty easily TRACK unit locations and status, etc, without a lot of trouble -- hell, maybe they are already able to do this so that each missions dumps the data to th existing template, or at least modifies it. But the hard part, in my view, is developing that war simulator that keeps all the units moving and fighting and operating during the period of time in between missions.

Pretty interesting stuff -- wish I was a programmer, would be an interesting project to tackle.

Ripcord

Really, you think so? How then did F4 do it back in the day?

Does "the bubble" ring a bell? ;) DocSigma's point is very much valid. There are no consumer PCs that could handle a Falcon sized campaign without a bubble, especially not at TFCSE level of detail.

Does "the bubble" ring a bell? ;) DocSigma's point is very much valid. There are no consumer PCs that could handle a Falcon sized campaign without a bubble, especially not at TFCSE level of detail.

And what's wrong with the bubble? I'd like DCS to work aerodynamic forces out using CFD but it's not possible realtime with actual computers. And what? Let's use a simplification then. There is nothing wrong with it, if the simplification is done in a clever way. And clearly aerodynamic in DCS is. The same thought can be applied in a dynamic campaign. Having each unit with all its features calculated in a open war scenario will bring your computer to its knees, for sure. But it's the task of ED to find out the best way to balance realism and simplification in order to have everything working fine and realistic. In Falcon 4 era, bubbles have to be used in order to have the whole war running in old times PC; I'm sure now we can have a dynamic campaign based on halfway between bubbles and each unit running independently with all its features.

Regards!!

And what's wrong with the bubble? I'd like DCS to work aerodynamic forces out using CFD but it's not possible realtime with actual computers. And what? Let's use a simplification then. There is nothing wrong with it, if the simplification is done in a clever way. And clearly aerodynamic in DCS is. The same thought can be applied in a dynamic campaign. Having each unit with all its features calculated in a open war scenario will bring your computer to its knees, for sure. But it's the task of ED to find out the best way to balance realism and simplification in order to have everything working fine and realistic. In Falcon 4 era, bubbles have to be used in order to have the whole war running in old times PC; I'm sure now we can have a dynamic campaign based on halfway between bubbles and each unit running independently with all its features.

 

Regards!!

:thumbup:

It always amazes me how people try to undermine the value of F4 dynamic campaign by saying "oh, but they used the 'player bubble'". Really en embarassing argument for someone who knows that any modeling IS simplification. It's the impression the end user gets that counts. If he gets the impression that the ongoing campaign is dynamic that is all there is to it.

Now someone can claim that the F4 campaign was actually a programming gimmick rather than modeling in the meaning of the word. But then if he doesn't show alternative showing that modeling was possible with the same resource usage he just puts himself in a bad light.

Really? What do you think a dynamic campaign is other than a glorified dynamic mission generator?

You are most probably right but are we going to discuss naming convention? If so, good luck to those who will try with that rather complicated subject. I tried with relatively simple one, the DCS "HDR mod", and all I got was people calling me names e.g. party pooper, to call up the mildest :D

I also agree that there are more important things to do/fix before implementing dynamic campaign. Like introducing out of the box co-op campaign possibility which is a relatively simple hack to do (fix the "impossible to set a flight with two or more ACs set to "player"")

P.S. Can anyone re-post a link to the interview with the author of F4 dynamic campaign? I tried to use "frugals interview falcon 4.0 dynamic campaign player bubble" to find it but with no avail.

:thumbup:

It always amazes me how people try to undermine the value of F4 dynamic campaign by saying "oh, but they used the 'player bubble'". Really en embarassing argument for someone who knows that any modeling IS simplification.

It's not embarassing, the bubble introduces a set of problems that can not easily be put aside.

What i find embarassing is the lack of will some people put forward towards discussing this topic. Honestly, this is becoming the godwins law of campaign system discussions. Why can't i state some F4 shortcomings without being essentially called a hater or provoking the obvious argumentum ad hominem? I'm so sick of that. Count me out.

You lot aren't doing any better ;)

:thumbup:

It always amazes me how people try to undermine the value of F4 dynamic campaign by saying "oh, but they used the 'player bubble'". Really en embarassing argument for someone who knows that any modeling IS simplification. It's the impression the end user gets that counts. If he gets the impression that the ongoing campaign is dynamic that is all there is to it.

 

Now someone can claim that the F4 campaign was actually a programming gimmick rather than modeling in the meaning of the word. But then if he doesn't show alternative showing that modeling was possible with the same resource usage he just puts himself in a bad light.

Naming convention is important. For example, DCS stands for 'Digital Combat Simulations', not 'Dynamic Campaign Systems' ;)

Joking aside, there are serious logistical problems with implementing a DC within DCS.

Here's a layman's analysis of the issue (mine, that is):

We have two possibilies for implementing the DC engine.

1. Bolt it onto DCS as is

2. Add bubble system to DCS

We'll start with #1.

In order to achieve this, the following are required:

a. Inventory tracking. Vehicles, weapons, personel

b. Over-arching strategy AI for at least one, if not both sides that will assign goals, ROEs and possibly targets, and knows when to surrender

c. Together with b, a system for moving resources from one place to the other and merging resources as required upon depletion by use or attrition

d. The DC engine must run its AI and resource manager in its own thread

e. The resources must be managed continuously, not just mission to mission

f. The state of the world must be save-able

g. The game must have very high reliability. No crashing of performance reductions

h. The game engine must be changed to handle units despawning/respawning

i. The AI needs to be changed in a manner that permits it to be reasonably 'smart' within the campaign. GCI needs to be implemented, better AWACS, other things as well. There are a LOT of actions that would need to be scripted and those scripts available for the DC AI to 'plug' into the various AI's in-game so they can adequately perform their missions.

This is just some bare minimums, and I doubt anyone who hasn't worked on a large project has a CLUE as to how enormous a work task this is. Automation IS NOT TRIVIAL.

Now, on to #2:

As above, but now we also need to re-code the engine to work with this whole bubble thing ...

You are most probably right but are we going to discuss naming convention? If so, good luck to those who will try with that rather complicated subject. I tried with relatively simple one, the DCS "HDR mod", and all I got was people calling me names e.g. party pooper, to call up the mildest :D

 

I also agree that there are more important things to do/fix before implementing dynamic campaign. Like introducing out of the box co-op campaign possibility which is a relatively simple hack to do (fix the "impossible to set a flight with two or more ACs set to "player"")

 

 

P.S. Can anyone re-post a link to the interview with the author of F4 dynamic campaign? I tried to use "frugals interview falcon 4.0 dynamic campaign player bubble" to find it but with no avail.

ED is moving slowly in that direciton, but don't expect a DC to just jump out and bite you in the nose all the sudden. Assuming it happens, it will be a long time in the making.

Frankly I've dealt with the F4 campaign system for a while and I was underwhelmed. Ok, it gives you what you want. Great. IMHO it had great potential, but no one bothered furthering it, leaving it an old, rusty piece of software that generates suicidal missions. That is all.

Why can't i state some F4 shortcomings without being essentially called a hater or provoking the obvious argumentum ad hominem? I'm so sick of that. Count me out.

Talking about your buddy's Porsche flaws when you ride roller skates is misplaced to say the least. That is why. Simple.

Naming convention is important. For example, DCS stands for 'Digital Combat Simulations

Actually it stands for Digital Combat SimulatOR :)

Joking aside, there are serious logistical problems with implementing a DC within DCS.

 

Here's a layman's analysis of the issue (mine, that is)

The "easy hack" I mentioned was not related to dynamic campaign, if anything. Still thanks for the details.

Frankly I've dealt with the F4 campaign system for a while and I was underwhelmed. Ok, it gives you what you want. Great. IMHO it had great potential, but no one bothered furthering it, leaving it an old, rusty piece of software that generates suicidal missions. That is all.

And here's where I jumped in with my recent post. Technical problems with implementing DC into DCS is one thing but undermining the influence of F4 DC is just:

- when you're a F4 player - not true

- when you're a DCS player/dev - see the Porsche example above :music_whistling:

Let's consider few things:

- the campaign engine has been fully rewritten by Lead Pursuit what, 5 years ago? It takes full advantage of multicore CPUs. The Porsche example again.

- the campaign engine together with ATC (I bet it was impossible to implement ATC in LO series for a decade too...) kept the zombie-sim Falcon 4.0 is alive for more than a decade. I dare you to find an avid relatively fresh Falconeer for whom the DC is not among top two reasons he likes zombies. It happens I played F4 for (too) long for the same reason. Only AFM introduced in FC was capable of dragging me of F4's DC and ATC

- I played tens of F4AF campaign missions (completed at leas one) and the only thing that I felt towards LO environment was a pity. Did I see some minor issues? Yes. Was LO environment still pitiful compared to F4's. Oh yes it was. And in many parts it's still is.

The most important part of all of it:

Here I dealt with the fact that I will have to wait for DC in DCS for a long time and managed to do it without posting anything. I acknowledged the technical difficulties too. But when I see this kind of rubbish about F4 campaign...

Have you even heard about logic? The discussion is usually about introducing DC to DCS. The fact that F4 DC *used bubble or have minor issues* is IRRELEVANT. When topic goes on "if F4 campaign is worth the hype?" it (*...*) still doesn't prove that it's not. Not even close.

Bailing out too.

P.S. The DCS development progresses slowly. If you anyone wants to see DC in DCS in the next 5 years he should support ditching FC2 as of DCS W release :)

And here's where I jumped in with my recent post. Technical problems with implementing DC into DCS is one thing but undermining the influence of F4 DC is just:

- when you're a F4 player - not true

- when you're a DCS player/dev - see the Porsche example above :music_whistling:

Porche? More like a Dolorean. Unique, interesting, but not an Aston-Martin. ;)

Let's consider few things:

- the campaign engine has been fully rewritten by Lead Pursuit what, 5 years ago? It takes full advantage of multicore CPUs. The Porsche example again.

Still not a Porsche ... so what, DCS is now the Porche of simulated sounds? BS.

The most important part of all of it:

Here I dealt with the fact that I will have to wait for DC in DCS for a long time and managed to do it without posting anything. I acknowledged the technical difficulties too. But when I see this kind of rubbish about F4 campaign...

 

Have you even heard about logic? The discussion is usually about introducing DC to DCS. The fact that F4 DC *used bubble or have minor issues* is IRRELEVANT. When topic goes on "if F4 campaign is worth the hype?" it (*...*) still doesn't prove that it's not. Not even close.

Of course it is relevant - because quite frankly some of those issues were major, and I'd rather not see them in a DCS DC.

Porche? More like a Dolorean. Unique, interesting, but not an Aston-Martin. ;)

And you're still standing there all cocky... in roller skates... ;)

Still not a Porsche ... so what, DCS is now the Porche of simulated sounds? BS.

You've missed the point. That was to disprove your argument about F4 DC not being improved. What was the word? Ah, "rusty piece of software". It has been re-written with the multicore capability on top of that. It also means that very few of the core DCS parts have received such a treatment, I realized that now.

Of course it is relevant - because quite frankly some of those issues were major, and I'd rather not see them in a DCS DC.

It would be relevant at all only (and by only I mean only) in the case of ED buying the code from LP with the intent to hook it up to current DCS code.

And you're still standing there all cocky... in roller skates... ;)

My roller skates are selling ... what's your 'Porche' doing at a low, low price point with no maintenance schedule?

You've missed the point. That was to disprove your argument about F4 DC not being improved. What was the word? Ah, "rusty piece of software". It has been re-written with the multicore capability on top of that. It also means that very few of the core DCS parts have received such a treatment, I realized that now.

You realized that support for F4 is done and the old rusty softare will remain old and rusty, while DCS is undergoing continuous development? ;)

It would be relevant at all only (and by only I mean only) in the case of ED buying the code from LP with the intent to hook it up to current DCS code.

It is relevant because 'we want a DC just like Falcon' is the common argument.