homepage Forums Air Combat & Civil Aviation DCS World Campaign after Campaign - ED's new focus

Exactly. And not by spitting out different branches of scripted missions, but by changing the environment in terms of threat level / threat type / asset number for the next mission.

Of course, a system that would be integrated with the program (DCS) itself could - at one further step - do away with the total randomness of the random mission generator and instead track which specific targets at which specific locations were taken out. My program only tracks and limits the overall availability of enemy force for the next mission and tracks replenish rate of that overall force, but thus still giving incentive and requiring thought about what type of enemy asset to go after in your next mission and / or which is sensible to do according to what the random mission generator came up with.

With regard to anything DCS, no, it wasn't. 1.5 was the first version that ran on DX11.

BTW, when I think about Dynamic Campaigns, I have, besides others, this picture in mind:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=fli...amp;FORM=VRDGAR

And yeah, yeah, spare me the BS about "but that's the movies!". I know that that's the movies! But the point is that in real life, air missions have a purpose formulated after a specific goal with regards to the theater of war, to change that theater according to that goal. It might be stupid goals sent downlink from suits sitting in Washington, or sensible goals by two Mavericks in an Intruder, or somewhere in between. But either way, it is never a "sripted" mission with "scripted" threats that someone "scripted" for your enjoyment or frustration and that will always be the same when you refly the "campaign". It is a dynamic application of force into a dynamic environment.

I want the player to think about and figure out his next mission like those two guys did in that video clip. And by God, how similar is that to the experience you got with Tornado for example. "Take out that power plant? Yeah, but you gota go through all these SAMs that you haven't worked on yet in your previous missions. OK, but you can go really low, 200 feet AGL on auto or 100 on manual, come around those hills and then maybe LOFT those bombs into the target to avoid the AAA and be back down in the weeds in a sec. Can you do it? And at night?"

Stuff like that can be done again. They did it in 1993 with Tornado already. It only requires the will.

Besides, "Flight of the Intruder" was a friggin' awesome movie. Best mil aviation movie in my mind.

BTW 2, to give those of you who might have missed out on Tornado because of their young age or something an idea of how awesome this sim was, and to show you how much worth the argument of "It can't be done, it is teh hard. Only Falcon 4 did it, but failed because buggy." really is:

https://youtu.be/fwZUJLXPvBs?t=382

Like several people mentioned above, as Lomac wasnt designed with DC operation in mind, "Save and Adopt" type of DC wont work well imo....

On the other side, realtime ATO generation for AI pilot is already possible with current MIST engine, I think they just make 24/7 MP Dynamic Campaign first instead.

I personally don't think a DC provided by ED will ever happen. They seem to rely on revenue just to continue what they have started (not that any end dates are ever in sight to complete their modules).

For many people, a DC may mean that no further revenue is generated due to the provision of an ever-changing world and fans may be happy to get immersed whilst using their favourite airframe without venturing back to the ED store to purchase the next beta.

These mini campaigns are all too easy to throw out with minimal effort/resources in comparison to the 'World' in order to mmake a quick profit.

I just hope this mechanism doesn't move the focus away from progressing the unfinished content which won't generate more funds into these quick money spinners. Why continue development for no return if quick profits can be made with throw away campaigns!

If ED are counting on revenue from these campaigns just to progress the existing work its simply another example of incompetent planning. Business acumen will always say you don't even start something that isn't profitable and you can't really rely on having to generate more funds with a mechanism that has no guarantee of doing so.

No-one can deny (although the same old faces will try) that ED haven't changed direction many times already.....I just hope this isn't another one. Lets be honest, in 8 years from ED we have a two unfinished theatres (one of which has been knocking around for many years) and a few modules of which only a couple could be classed as 'complete' with many others in various unknown states and years of delays.

At some point these (easy) campaigns will not sell enough so they will not make them anymore. Then maybe a DC will be worth investment and in parallel more complex campaigns that a DC engine would not cover might become best sellers.

For now is very good they produce content for people that enjoy such content (not me sadly as I usually fall asleep during mission 6). That means they will seek to develop this area.

I just want all those super lua scripts to be integrated in a user friendly UI. But I guess then any n00b might be able to do cool missions.

As long as ED keep missing deadlines and spreading their resources so thinly over new announced content the mini-campaigns will probably sell quite well.....because there is very little else to keep the customers entertained.....apart from empty statements, announcements and hints that development continues.

Keep banging that drum.....

Nate

Don't you guys know that Mini-Campaigns, Empty Statements, Announcements, and Hints have Electrolytes!

They got what Sim-Pilots CRAVE!

Lol , thats brilliant

Wrong beverage, that would be Gator-ade!

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but annoyingly the some of the tools to actually do this are already there in DCS. Admittedly it takes a few changes to enable in Lua, but object state I/O from Missions (even in realtime) is in the code and asset tracking capabilities in the mission editor. It's just nobody has tied it together yet, let alone made it into a functional UI.

It still requires something to process the Mission output to input for the next iteration. A few talented Campaign Creators have harnessed parts of it, however it still remains mostly opaque.

Nate

As long as ED keep missing their own deadlines and continue to show minimal 'progress' this drum will keep banging.

It's quite simple really.....if ED can get their act together after what is so far 8+ years of trying then there won't be anything to complain about will there!




You test for and represent ED on these forums, yet your approach is to rely on or look for 3rd parties to find a solution?

P1ss up in a brewery, ash tray on a motorbike or a chocolate fireguard springs to mind!

Ok I'll rephrase it.

DX-11 was running on the EDGE platform as far back as 2010 possibly even earlier. The delay in getting the "Official" DCS version of EDGE 1.5 out, was no doubt due to ED fulfilling their contracts to companies such as AVIA and the like. Nothing like the spin doctors excuses over at the official forums, heck it took how long to fix the AI crossing bridges in the old map? simple things could have been rectified if ED was not dedicated to pumping out maps that would possibly win military contracts.

ED was busy making maps for AVIA with the new engine which later became known as "EDGE" running on DX11. As AVIA go to military expo's all around the world show casing their work, ED looked at it like a free advertising exercise so they put customer complaints on the back burner for 2 or 3 years, employed dodgy 3rd party devs to fill the void and shift the blame of long map delays and official product updates, to having the majority of consumers change their focus on complaining about ED to blaming 3rd parties for their shortcomings. The only way ED will release an official DC campaign is if a military contractor requests it, just like AVIA did 6 or so years ago when they requested a decent map running on DX11 systems.

Where the conspiracy lies however is that AVIA now have the FSX logo on some maps persuading people to believe the maps are running on the old and tired FSX platform (DX-10), however there is official confirmation over at the ED official forums that the maps are in fact running on the EDGE platform (DX11), don't believe me? just search Corsica or EDGE and read the messages posted by the ED testers and moderators back in 2013-14 when these maps from AVIA first came to light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXOwnYpqCgA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNxJYBo5uFU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLFs2otuilc

to name a few.....

Now these guys and no doubt others must be paying a bucket load for these maps, considering only AVIA have the license to use them, unlike Nevada which thousands of the public have purchased. Can anyone else see where I am going with this? Why put 1.5 and 2.0 on hold for years and build maps for 1 company to use yet "10's of thousands" (I'm assuming based on hawk sales by none other than "up the chain at VEAO") would have paid at $50 bucks a pop to own the Nevada map.


So why don't we have a dynamic campaign? it will happen when AVIA and the like say they require one and then after 6 years more years it may filter down and we will see a DC for public use.

Is comparing maps and campaigns pointless? nope, completely on board and I'll sum up.

AVIA as a company must have paid millions more for their maps than what the public customers have paid combined for Nevada., Heck AVIA must have paid 10's of millions more than the joint sale of Nevada if ED put development of 1.5, 2.0 and conned BST to drop their planned modules to help push out these maps. Sounds like a tax scam to me, build maps, claim it on tax.

If you want an official ED produced Dynamic Campaign, be prepared to pay 50 odd million to make it happen, that or push AVIA to get ED to make it happen, just like they did with the maps. Looks like AVIA are the puppet masters in this simulator.

Comparisons can be made but they aren't strictly equal. For missions/campaigns the tools are built into the game and I'd argue functions as a critical component of the overall package. Check out the multiplayer server browser and of the 80+ servers I bet you can only count the number of them running built in missions on just one hand. Terrain, and as an extension full fledged modules, are a different matter and generally require a whole lot more know-how and other programs to make it into a reality. The barrier of entry for Joe user to make a campaign and get it sold as a DLC is much lower to trying to make a terrain or aircraft.

I agree with what you are saying, my point is that ED won't implement a DC unless an outside backer steps in and coughs up countless dollars to make it an official reality before the tools and know how filter down for public use.

If Joe public had the ability to put together a DC and get it sold as a DLC, Grimes, Speed or someone else with the scripting know how would have done it yonks back (using external save script data such as notepad). ED could support M-bot in his endeavour to make his DC a reality across the module board, even if that means sharing insider information or design tools to make it work. Instead of another outside external tool to record the data like FsEconomy do with FSX etc etc (disclaimer: I've used fseconomy as an example of external use programs that save game data)

an ingame UI with official ED support is much more valuable than external saves in notepad and the like as previously mentioned in this thread.

That isn't what I've said. Please be kind enough not put words in my mouth. However, feel free to quote where I've said this should be a 3rd party endeavour to create.

I don't think we are at odds with the desire for a DC to be honest, the priority its been given I think is where we diverge.

Oh and just to clear up one thing I don't represent ED in any official capacity, however I can understand why this might be seen this way.

Nate

I didn't quote you or put any words in your mouth, as you can see from my own quote above I said that your APPROACH is to look for others (i.e people outside of ED) to find the solution. It's quite obvious I'm correct in this because your previous statement which I will quote you was the following;



Nobody?......well, if you're not saying that 'ED has tied it together yet' then you're obviously referring to people outside of the company. Why should anyone else other than ED find a solution in the first place? If they didn't stumble from one plan to the next they would know exactly what work they have to do and how they were going to do it.

I think you'd struggle to find anyone who thinks that ED know which direction they're actually travelling in.....and if they do know, it's certainly in their commercial/military interests with the desktop userbase as an afterthought that follows their primary focus and is completely reactive rather than pro-active.

Nope sorry, that's you drawing your own inference to suit your agenda, quelle surprise.

I never said it my approach was to rely on or look for 3rd parties to find a solution. I very much doubt anybody outside ED would be willing to take it on anyway. Some of the tools and hooks in code are there, but not the glue to hold them together. The closest attempt at it will be MBots Dynamic Campaign Engine. But to suggest it will fit seamlessly into DCS as a native campaign engine would is naive.

Nate