Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

If you look back at JimMack's post, you should find all the evidence you need for why ED has not moved in the direction of a "bubble" campaign system like F4's. We didn't say it's a bad system, but it's not one that fits the needs of our products.

If you look back at JimMack's post, you should find all the evidence you need for why ED has not moved in the direction of a "bubble" campaign system like F4's. We didn't say it's a bad system, but it's not one that fits the needs of our products.

I haven't participated in a DC related discussion in a while - do people really insist on 'the bubble way' in generall? Or is their argument "if ED had gone for bubble the DCS would be dynamic now"?

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

 

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

 

Then I could say, getting back to actual sim names, that Falcon has achieved in its times what Flanker/LO didn't and LO/DCS line is better now solely because it's a discontinued product :music_whistling:

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

Not mine so it's a legitimate response to the 'common argument' but not when I'm around ;)

Aaaah, I'm through :smilewink:

I wish ED haven't gone for few of the gimmicks that backfire now (not campaign related). You can't just spoof the impression that ED worked like they wanted to continue their work on a sterile Flanker world for the coming two decades i.e. it seems this is the reason why we don't have many of the dynamic campaign prerequisites implemented and ready today e.g. resources tracking or ATC/comms environment. To calm campaign riots you could just throw users a bone once in a while - a single DC prerequisite implemented :sly:

But this is the past. I wish ED invested more in promotion so that the development pace could finally increase. Rub the "military-grade simulator" into people's faces more often! :D And repeat this to them again and again

All the best to you ED team!

Indeed the sort of architecture that enables layers of instancing and bubble abstractions is best done in a ground-up sort of way. Bolting on is difficult to do. In fact if you wanted to bolt it on, you'd really be bolting DCS onto an underlying campaign-layer engine and passing a heck of a lot of variables when you "went 3D" and not the other way around.

The bubble (in Falcon) would often result in more realistic outcomes to engagements than the more complex calculations. My last DCS:WH campaign mission we lost 6 USAF aircraft, several to mid air collisions and a few more to high-alt one-pass attacks that degenerated into low-altitude dwellings because the AI doesn't know when to give up. None of that would have happened in a bubble calc.

The needs of its customers (read: military contractors) is for high-fidelity systems modeling for the purposes of training in strictly-controlled example scenarios, not for an ongoing air war entertainment product. It's just a bit irritating to be 2nd-tier customers because products that could even potentially satisfy our wants have been few and far between historically.

As far as gimmicks go, the "mission-tree campaign" isn't one of the most satisfying. I hope a lot of programming effort wasn't expended on this front.

Tharos your list of what would need to be done is absolutely elegant. I'm not upset that ED isn't running headlong in this direction already, more disappointed that the product was painted into this corner that's so very difficult to break out of.

Well said Frederf.

While I think single serving purpose built missions are useful to consumer and professional usage of the software, leaving them similar often causes one product to suffer. I personally do not feel a DC system similar to that of Falcon's is right for DCS. We've seen alot of examples and reasoning for this, so I'll compare it to *gasp* *dramatic voice* computer games.

Falcon 4's DC is sorta like the Civilization series. Each time you play through is different. What enemies and allies do and where they are usually changes.

DCS is currently most like a mid 2000s FPS games single player campaign. The story doesn't really change, there's not alot of randomness involved. A fair bit is predictable on the 2nd playthrough, and there isn't alot of consequences to action.

We don't really need some strategic WORP AI that eventually decides the only way to win a campaign is not to play. Rather we need to link each individual mission together via specific multiple conditions. GG mentioned that the first item needed is an inventory system, by giving a finite number of weapons to be used by the player at the start of each campaign immediately changes how a player approaches each mission. You don't need total inventory tracking, or detailed AI on how supplies work, just localize it to the player.

Besides, alot of what GG mentioned has usage outside of a complete DC.

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

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

1. Game saves. While not realistic, its damn useful for anyone with a family or short time to play.

2. A direct linkage between 2 or more missions. Is unit persistent? If so it shows up in subsequent missions, possibly with its own defined tasks.

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

2. MP missions. Endless waves of specific enemies. Not 400 groups + the 400 triggers to spawn them.

i. The AI needs to be changed...

To complete the gaming analogy, I hope someday DCS will be more like Mass Effect 2. Each time you play a campaign there will be alot that is the same, but each subsequent mission and the choices you make will have more of an impact as the campaign progresses. By the end of a campaign you should have a different experience than what you had previously.

I agree it is probably too late now to create a real DC like in F4. Bolting it onto DCS won't work -- in fact, as one of you noted here, it would have to go the other way around: DCS would need to be inserted into the DC somehow. That isn't going to happen.

All that we need is a way to tie the missions together in such as way that the player can influence the outcome and subsequent events/tasking in the next mission.

-- If I bomb the warehouse, I don't want to see it there all shiny and new on the very next mission. That goes for EW sites, and major SAM sites as well. Track damage on FIXED structures.

-- Have some kind of OOB that is coherent. What units are operating from where?

-- If allies advance along the front in a particular sector, I want to see some evidence of that in the next mission.

-- Allow for enough different kind of missions (BAI, CAS, CSAR, limited SEAD, interdiction, etc) to keep it interesting.

-- Track logistics and supplies, even if it is only as simple as basic scoring system (Hey we blew up that transport plane and a column of trucks, so that reduces some enemy units along the front, etc).

Just read/write mission data to a file at the start and at the end of each mission. That's it. Mission one loads, I fly it, and then when I am done, the campaign engine writes the data to a file.

You cannot tell me I need a supercomputer for that. Look at the mission debrief screen we already have now. If you can build a mission in the ME, then load all that data into a mission and fly it, and then produce an extremely detailed chronological mission debrief -- who fired at whom right down to the second -- then already have the majority the data collected right there. Just dump all that data to a database file. Or not even all the data, just determine the relevant pieces of data to track, such as location of units, red/blue kill scores. At the end the campaign engine runs a quick check of the campaign objects, to just to see if one side as achieve victory, and allow the user to save the campaign before it moves on to the next mission.

That's it.

Don't need to devote huge resources for tracking anything IN FLIGHT that the sim isn't already doing. If the scope of the campaign engine will be BEFORE and AFTER the actual missions, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I see this as a minimum requirement for having a viable campaign engine that approaches dynamic.

So how to account for events happening out there on the battlefield when we aren't flying? Use the data from the previous mission and make a few adjustments. Create some logic that makes some basic assumptions about force levels of units within a certain proximity of each other on the front, and also based on the outcome of our previous mission.

Or hell, just split the map up into a couple hundred little sectors, village by village and town by town, mountain by mountain, and assign owners to each, red or blue. If we scored a marginal victory, we picked up one sector and our forces will occupy that area on our next mission. If we scored a crushing blow, then maybe a 2-3 sectors change hands. Or vice-versa.

Randomly generated missions are cool, just gotta make them link together in a logical manner, so that the player A10C flight can influence the outcome.

Again, I think the DCS crew is on the right track and you are halfway there now.

Ripcord

EDIT: I am mostly familiar with Janes FA-18 which had what is sometimes called a semi-dynamic campaign engine -- one could argue it wasn't truly dynamic at all, but one thing it did do is track campaign variables from mission to mission, and any of those variables could/would influence or determine which mission nodes came next. Interesting to note that the common thread in both sims is the producer Matt Wagner.

Thanks. Actually ED really does want to provide better features for the community, but there are limits on how fast they can provide them. I have seen features go in and get pulled due to lack of time to complete them. As one example I will point to nav system drift.

It isn't that ED cannot add a DC, as I mentioned, and it isn't that they don't want to ... but they have to build it up slowly, or give up time on making a module. The latter isn't going to happen.

Tharos your list of what would need to be done is absolutely elegant. I'm not upset that ED isn't running headlong in this direction already, more disappointed that the product was painted into this corner that's so very difficult to break out of.

We don't really need some strategic WORP AI that eventually decides the only way to win a campaign is not to play. Rather we need to link each individual mission together via specific multiple conditions. GG mentioned that the first item needed is an inventory system, by giving a finite number of weapons to be used by the player at the start of each campaign immediately changes how a player approaches each mission. You don't need total inventory tracking, or detailed AI on how supplies work, just localize it to the player.

I think it would be better for it to be fairly 'total' ... if the effort isn't huge to make that happen, then it would be a good option and possibly lend itself to creating campaigns where the AI controls an insurgent force with limited weapons. Or something.

Besides, alot of what GG mentioned has usage outside of a complete DC.

Even without a DC, the benefit of AI on their own thread is obvious.

Uses.

Absolutely right. ED will probably add such features in the future, and whether they build a DC on them or not, they will be very useful.

1. Units become no longer relevant. Virtualize their actions/movements to save on memory.

Not sure what you mean here, but this is not necessarily realistic. Some things like supply and movement to certain nodes could be virtualized in theory, but then you give up the spontaneity of randomly pwning their incoming supply il-76 or that tank column on the road heading to reinforce the front. In theory if they were to move ahead from mission to mission, time permitting, this is reasonable, or if real-time, if the player's jet couldn't get there in time (or even AI enemy jets or other forces) then you can also just do a count change instead of sending the vehicles down the road.

However anything more than this starts to resemble a bubble system which, as mentioned, is probably not a realistic option for ED.

2. MP missions. Endless waves of specific enemies. Not 400 groups + the 400 triggers to spawn them.

Has been asked before (by myself no less) and I'm sure it will eventually happen.

I see no reason why we can't "dial in" their need for self preservation or importants within a scenario. Also most of what you mention adds an extra layer of AI that would be useful for a completely stand-alone mission, let alone linked missions.

Absolutely :) As you can see there are some options for aggressiveness right now and other things in the A-10C ME.

To complete the gaming analogy, I hope someday DCS will be more like Mass Effect 2. Each time you play a campaign there will be alot that is the same, but each subsequent mission and the choices you make will have more of an impact as the campaign progresses. By the end of a campaign you should have a different experience than what you had previously.

I'm certain it will get there ... regardless of arguments between us non-devs etc, ED's devs are paving the road to make their product more advanced with each iteration. While a given module might not deal with everyone's pet peeves, it will certainly bring new things.

And he's bringing his knowledge from that project to the A-10C. A lot if not all of the new ME functionality is according to Matt's specification :)

EDIT: I am mostly familiar with Janes FA-18 which had what is sometimes called a semi-dynamic campaign engine -- one could argue it wasn't truly dynamic at all, but one thing it did do is track campaign variables from mission to mission, and any of those variables could/would influence or determine which mission nodes came next. Interesting to note that the common thread in both sims is the producer Matt Wagner.

Interesting discussion.

In my eyes, the campaigns are currently clearly the weakest aspect of DCS. And I am saying this as someone who has spent many hours on the A-10 campaigns. Coming from Flanker and Lock On, DCS has made great progress on AI, ME and single mission fidelity. I sincerely hope that the next step will be a big improvement to campaigns. Ultimately I think that a true dynamic campaign must be the goal. Of course this would be a massive project and we all knew that this can only be possible step by step. After many years of following ED, I hope that we are about to enter an entry level DC.

Frankly I am a little disapointed that DCS does not feature a bubble system. I understand that this is a big advantage for military projects, therefore ED went this way. It was the decision that was right for them. For a game I think a bubble is the better approach, and being a gamer rather than a military trainee, I would prefere the system that offers better gameplay. Without the bubble you have to chose between fidelity of the AI, or number of AI. Both cannot be on a high level at the same time. I would prefere both, an AI that is as complex as possible while in combat with the player and a war that is massive in scale. If engagements that are being fought beyond my horizon are pure statistics, fine for me. If you not happen to watch the fight with external views, it will be pure statistics anyway regardless of bubble or not.

One approach that would ease the entry into the DC world would be to limit scope of this DC. Unfortunately the CAS subject, which currently is the emphasis of DCS, is possibly the most demanding to a DC. Ground wars are incredible complex, requiring thousands of units to be tracked and complex AI decisions to be made on many levels, from high level strategic decision right down to unit maneuvering in the most complex environment available (the ground). Therfore my suggestion for an entry DC would be to leave out the ground war alltogether and concentrate on a pure air campaign. Imagine the air campaign against North Vietnam, the first phase of Desert Storm or the OCA campaigns of the Iraq-Iran war. The DC would feature an attacking side that tries to defeat the other by air power. Goal of the scenario would include 1. defeat enemy IADS 2. destroy enemy air force 3. destroy enemy infrastructure (or to prevent it).

The advantage of such a scenario would be that, missing the ground war component, the amount of participating objects is reduced greatly. Targets are mostly stationary (airbases, bridges, factories, bunkers etc.) or movement is pretty simple (pre-defined supply lines for supply trucks/trains, pre-defined sites for mobile SAMs). DC related AI planing would mostly be limited to aircraft, which is easier than for ground units.

Of course such a DC would only work with an aircraft that can participate in such an operation (air-air, SEAD, strike). As such it could not be added to DCS independently, but must be an integral part of a product, having a clearly defined scenario. I think removing the ground war would be the most sensible way to advance towards a DC.

Personally I am extremely pleased to see ED meticulously putting stone on stone, building everything on a solid foundation, then adding features and complexity as resources allow.

I have every confidence that we eventually wil get a full dynamic campaign, a complete range of strikers and fighters, dynamic weather, 3-4 different scenarios and even some stuff we can't even imagine right now. It just so happens that they cannot pull it out of their hats. One step at a time, they are going about it the right way. Just look at FC 2.0, then DCS:BS, then at DCS:A-10C. It should be obvious that we are heading for simmer heaven.

Blackshark in particular would likely benefit from a bubble system, much more than say A-10, as the "bubble" can be much smaller , which would have a potential increase in performance, as far as I am aware most of the issues are around boundary cases, e.g. transitions from the 3D to 2D world to use Falcon terminology. It provided an opportunity to have the illusion of being inserted into a living breathing theatre, because it had hundreds and thousands of aircraft let alone the ground targets, all in apparent motion... Retrofitting it would be a complete nightmare, though alas!

As it is agree with a lot of Bucic's observations, though not his conclusions, one of the reasons that Falcon was succesful was the dynamic campaign engine, having played Falcon and Flanker, I have to say I enjoyed Falcon more because of the sense of continuity between missions, and occassionaly when I was feeling tired watching the "campaign movie" :)

I believe that it is this continuity that is lacking today in DCS; the inability to see how my interactions impact one mission to the next, that mean even though I love the flight fidelity of the KA-50 and A-10, it still lacks something... to give it that full imerssive feeling it would also need to look at the "volume of traffic" as well, but, this may be something beyond the scope, of what the designers intended. That said one of the most imerssive features for me is the Civ Traffic feature for ground objects, something sadly lacking in Falcon.

Knowing that there is a roadmap to address these "gaps" is great, knowing that the new features wont arrive all at once is also fine, that's just an engineering reality :)

...but they have to build it up slowly, or give up time on making a module.

EDIT: I mean, the only required interface to DCS would be the .miz mission file, and its structure is no secret - just unzip one and you'll soon see how they're constructed ;)

OK, but what if someone came up with an external dynamic campaign engine coupled with an application for tracking resource usage and conflict progress like IL-2's various online warfare systems? Could be done that way too.

 

EDIT: I mean, the only required interface to DCS would be the .miz mission file, and its structure is no secret - just unzip one and you'll soon see how they're constructed ;)

Sure it could. But when attempting it, the word easy will vanish from your vocabulary. Along with some hair from the top of your head.

Sure it could. But when attempting it, the word easy will vanish from your vocabulary. Along with some hair from the top of your head.

Oh, very true. I only did this itty bitty little app for IL-2 myself back in the day, but even THAT was enough work for a lazy-arse bugger like me :D Still, you never know if some brave soul takes up the challenge someday...

Don't need to devote huge resources for tracking anything IN FLIGHT that the sim isn't already doing. If the scope of the campaign engine will be BEFORE and AFTER the actual missions, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Brilliant! :thumbup:

Interesting to note that the common thread in both sims is the producer Matt Wagner.

And he's bringing his knowledge from that project to the A-10C. A lot if not all of the new ME functionality is according to Matt's specification :)

:huh: I didn't know that! Like I said before ED needs to brag more ;)

I cant add anything intelligent to the discussion, but I just want to say a DC is very important to me and is a very big part in my wishes for the future of combat flight sims. Yes perhaps the Falcon 4 DC wasnt very good in reality, but the feeling I got from flying F4 DC missions, even if I failed almost every single one, nothing has ever come close to that feeling, yes the graphics sucked, and the DC was broken, and I got killed every time, and the game crahed all the time. Didnt matter to me, just the feeling it gave me to think that I was part of something bigger, and that the targets I failed to destroy would be there next mission was good enough and nothing has come close to that. I would much rather be a part of something like that, and fail every damn mission, and be totally overrun by enemy forces, than do a mission, fail a couple of times until I learn the trick, or twist to finishing it, and then finish it on the third try. Even if it all was just an illusion, it sure worked on me. I understand that its very very hard to do something good and dynamic for DCS, I get the problems, and I understand that it maybe wont happen, I understand why, I wont complain about it because I know how hard it is, I will still support ED even if they say DC is impossible for us, but I will never stop dreaming about a good DC that can give me that feeling again :)

Just a laymans view, I cant participate in the discussion on your level guys :) Great discussion, very interesting to follow :)

It seems that all the DC discussion comes down to is ED's limited resources, so:

- spread the word about ED products

- try to help newcommers

- support ditching FC 2 :P (on the forums)

Also all service personnel start pointing out the extreme importance of having the ability to train dynamic full scale conflict scenarios with correct doctrine adherent AI for each nation in network environments of up to 256 clients to your CO :D

- support ditching FC 2 :P (on the forums)

You need to be aware that the forum only consists of a fraction of users over all. Therefore, opinions voiced on the forum don't really weigh in that heavily on ED's masterplan decisions. Not that i have any deep insight into that process, neither saying that the forums are being conveniently ignored, you just need to have realistic expectations when you start lobbying in the forum. :)

You need to be aware that the forum only consists of a fraction of users over all. Therefore, opinions voiced on the forum don't really weigh in that heavily on ED's masterplan decisions. Not that i have any deep insight into that process, neither saying that the forums are being conveniently ignored, you just need to have realistic expectations when you start lobbying in the forum. :)

I know but large numbers of people didn't know that. Until you came informative and all and spoiled everything :sly:

I wouldn't mind paying for a module that consisted just out of a Dynamic Campaign. I am find the lack of one is seriously hampering my motivation to get into this series seriously though I did buy two copies of DCS A-10C, one for a buddy of mine. For me even the mediocre DC in IL-2 has more interest at the moment.

I am not threatening anybody. I bought Lock On and Flaming CLiff's because i was almost sure the way of the dynamic campaign was the way to go and that DCS would also follow that same path. What made a flight simm for me is not only flying separate missions and use the aircraft avionics as realistic as possible... But also the feeling that you are working with other forces in a effort to stop the enemy. Right now i have been playing Lockon and FC2/DCS for a cople years... It was extremely fun. But i never ever got the grand scale feeling TAW and Falcon brought me. It was just playing the same missions over and over again and go head to head in MP with no purpose at all. Even the nicest community made maps made me sad when i finsihed them. I had destroyed a SAM site... wooptiedoo. It was fun doing it... but the endresult is so empty.

Quote:

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...

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 :) (from GGTharos)

Me: I have allready waited a considerable amount of time playing Lock On and DCS. So a cople more years won't hurt.

This has been debated ad-nauseum. The strength of DCS series is that you can view anything that is happening anywhere in the world.

Falcon used a "bubble" system. You can only view what is happening near you. What is happening elsewhere in the world is a look-up table, and you can not view it.

Why is it so importend to be able to view everything that is happening anywhere in the world when in most FC missions there are only a handfull of planes. Nothing interested is going on besides the mission your flying in most FC missions because there is no dynamic campaign. You can't ask support from other fighters... cause there are no other fighters.. or they operate alone with no means to ask them for help. AWACS is totally useless cause the limited numbers of other aircraft in the air and again... you can't even ask the AWACS for help to dispatch other fighters to your area or to reroute the refueler. When the AWACS go's down it's like "whatever". You can't have scrambles to react on incomming fighters.... Cause first of all incomming fighters in FC are heavely scripted so they only come when the mission makers actually wants them to come.

Bottem line... the DCS and FC series are cool to play. But seriously lack indepth gameplay that makes you sit on the edge of your chair wondering what will happen next or what you have to do next. And like sticky say's, even if you fail most of the missions you still have a great feeling. Right now if i fail the mission i get a feeling like i'm playing a FPS. Hit restart and try again. I think the feeling of being a part of something bigger would make this game outstanding even if there are some flaws in the campaign.

Originally Posted by Ripcord

Don't need to devote huge resources for tracking anything IN FLIGHT that the sim isn't already doing. If the scope of the campaign engine will be BEFORE and AFTER the actual missions, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I totally disagree with that. Cause in a dynamic campaign you can call for all kind of support and than the aircraft and units roaming around the world can come in verry handy. You can even reroute them to defend a hole on your defenses.

And all the people say its not easy to make a dynamic campaign are totally right. But its also not easy to make a Flight Simm like DCS... That never stopped them. And how can guy's that worked with 10 year old tech back in the day's make a dynamic campaign (TAW,falcon) that worked reasonable well and actually gave you the feeling of being a fighterpilot... Even if you are a noob in flying.

Maybe i'm asking this because i got a to high expectation of these developers. When playing their games trough the years and reading alot about their product i tought it would be possible for them to make a full dynamic campaign in maybe 2 years.

Since the issue has been addressed in depth and the most important messages were received. I would like to add an anecdote.

One day I had a conversation with a friend, was always in the world of Falcon, commenting on the recent A-10C and the potential aircraft we will have in the future in DCS.

He confessed that if DCS will provide an F-16, he completely abandons the F4. My question was, even without dynamic campaign?, his answer, yes!

With this I get to reflect my personal opinion, I think if there is still a world of F4, is because no other simulator has been devoted to this aircraft. Dynamic campaign is not the reason, people from F4, want to fly the F-16, and that is the main reason. The passion for this aircraft.

Based on the expertise that has proven DCS A-10C, only they are capable of providing F-16 even better than the existing F4. And when this happens, the DC will be a topic almost forgotten.

Even so, by the time DCS only need a fighter air-air, and the faith community would increase even double or triple.

Sorry about offtopic.

Greetings.

Since the issue has been addressed in depth and the most important messages were received. I would like to add an anecdote.

 

One day I had a conversation with a friend, was always in the world of Falcon, commenting on the recent A-10C and the potential aircraft we will have in the future in DCS.

 

He confessed that if DCS will provide an F-16, he completely abandons the F4. My question was, even without dynamic campaign?, his answer, yes!

 

With this I get to reflect my personal opinion, I think if there is still a world of F4, is because no other simulator has been devoted to this aircraft. Dynamic campaign is not the reason, people from F4, want to fly the F-16, and that is the main reason. The passion for this aircraft.

 

Based on the expertise that has proven DCS A-10C, only they are capable of providing F-16 even better than the existing F4. And when this happens, the DC will be a topic almost forgotten.

 

Even so, by the time DCS only need a fighter air-air, and the faith community would increase even double or triple.

 

Sorry about offtopic.

 

Greetings.

Right, spoken like someone with very little time in the Falcon 4 campaign engine. Even though the F-16 is my favorite modern fighter the only reason I occasionally try FreeFalcon, only to find out it is still a unplayable bug ridden disaster, is for the campaign engine. If I had just wanted to fly the F-16C around I can load up FSX with the Aerosoft F-16 addon and fly it to my hearts content.

Would all these variations of Falcon, OpenFalcon, FreeFalcon, Allied Force, BenchMarkSims, exist if people JUST want to fly the F-16? Ofcourse not, it's for the campaign engine.

It is, actually, an interesting discussion and there are lot of good opinions and good arguments.

In fact, the more I think about this, the better the business opportunity for a third party developer to step in here and write a DC program that interfaces with the existing game.

DCS could probably do it better but the priority for them has to be getting the sim done and out the door. Maybe in subsequent releases they will be able to tackle the DC. I am sure they are also intrigued by the challenge and I do believe that mission generator is a step in that direction. Call me an optimist or call me naive but I kinda think they will get there eventually.

But it won't be soon. And this really opens the door, IMHO, for a couple of enterprising programmers to step in and get something out on the market. I wish I had the skills, I'd tackle it myself. If you pay DCS $60 for this sim, I would be willing to bet that you'd pay me (or somebody way smarter) a nice little price of $20-$30 for my DC add-on software package.

My comment here is not totally without basis - we had a guy in the Team Superhornet group that created a very rudimentary mission creater for Janes FA-18. It referred back to a template, and did some calculations before placing various units on the map. Now, that sim allowed for some basic things like damage tracking of static objects and ships, which DCS still does not, but it was still a big accomplishment. A lot of mission parameters were tracked from mission to mission, most important order of battle and unit status and location. And he did it without no source code. Sadly that programmer got sick (we think) and we kinda lost contact with him, and nothing went forward. However, I would bet that something similar could be done here.

The add-on software would have to run in the background and it would call up your DCS exe and your mission editor and probably your mission generator. It would be start off with an initial map and probably even an initial miz file, and keep track of war scenario participants as well as red/blue campaign goal conditions. I'd create about a dozen mission templates to plug into and modify and the software would modify those, based on a whole set of parameters tracked outside the DCS.exe -- all the things we've talked about in this thread.

Oh you had your AWACS shot down last time, alright well we've accounted for that. Maybe on the next mission there isn't an AWACS available or it is farther away, or it comes on station late.

Fixed SAM sites that were destroyed on previous strikes are still destroyed on subsequent missions.

Location and status of units are tracked, this is the key.

And resupply and logistics are taken into account. Going after enemy truck convoys coming south opens up a whole new interdiction aspect to this sim that really should be a major consideration in a campaign like this.

Now will you allow the user to redirect the movement of ground units or modify air tasking? Well, I suppose so. Maybe there will be some limited ability to do that.

One problem here is that our theater of operations is very limited in Georgia -- NATO units would be operating primarily from bases in Turkey, most of the just off the map (Incirlik AB in particular), and those would have to be modelled somehow. I think a DC addon package like this would be better if it provided a whole new theatre of operations -- say Afghanistan or Korea -- at least added in a major functional NATO airbase or two in Turkey.

Anyway, enough of my ramblings -- I am sadly not a programmer, so my vision of what this might look like really doesn't matter. My only point here is that, in my view, there is a viable business case here for a third party dev.

Ripcord

Right, spoken like someone with very little time in the Falcon 4 campaign engine.

True :)

Like people fly DCS BS because they love Ka-50 with its vintage, cumbersome weapon systems :D