I know this is pointless to ask... but is there? Is ED ever going to put a dynamic campaign system into their game? I own three modules and never fly them because well... I memorize everything I do... so after the second or third time flying a mission it feels like nothing but repetition because I always know what is going to happen next.

A dynamic campaign would fix this problem. It would also help the world feel alive.

I don't pay enough attention to the game these days(no time), but figured I'd ask in case someone else has heard something I have not.

Well, they have been using basically the same campaign system since the days of Win95 so doubt they ever will make one. Took them about 15 years just to give us a new area to fly in.

To be fair, a properly scripted mission may just introduce enough randomness so that you can't really tell what's coming up next. That, or just use the game to whip up a random mission for you. DCS still had that random mission generator, right?

Seeing as DCS is struggling to meet deadlines for announced projects, I doubt they'll be tackling a DC anytime soon. Someone may tell you there **WILL** be a DC for this sim, but any sort of timeframe they say is hogwash.

There was a poll asking what the player base wanted, a dynamic campaign came out on top. Since then ED have been churning out small random campaigns nothing anyone would call dynamic.
So to answer your question no, they're never going to put out a dynamic campaign.

One was made for the MiG-21, but I've not had a chance to try it out, assuming it still works with the latest patches. Anyone give it a try?



The Jedi Master

I really don't get why people are so crazy about DC. Damn it!
You ungrateful bastards. Every two weeks ED Is releasing something in another two weeks. That's a lot of work if you didn't notice!
And then what's wrong with the current mission editor?? You can make a perfect mission with as many as 11 units and 3 triggers in just under 6 hours.
I love how I can create very accurate scenarios with dcs, and fly it without any disturbance: no ATC, no wingmen asking for permission to engage targets. Not like that terrible dynamic campaign engine from the other f-16 sim. You open it and it creates hundreds of flights that you can just pick and fly, and you never know what's going to happen. And all that action going on on the ground is just disturbing. It disturbs me how it doesn't affect FPS at all.
And don't get me started with radio comms, it just feels like I am flying in a real war. That's not realistic at all.

You people keep asking for a DC, but until you provide some legit evidence that you want a DC, don't expect ED to do anything about this.

How dare people complain that a mission can be created manually in just under 6 hours!! Do they know how long it takes to plan a mission in real life??!!?!
And how are you supposed to be the hero that saves the day if you have to abort your mission because you got jumped by MiGs?
How are you expected to know which is the "most awesomest of awesome" mission if there are hundreds to choose from? How are you supposed to rack up your kill count and finally get promoted to Major General Admiral Colonel, First Class?



Comedy gold bkthunder!

lol

To be fair 4 out of 9 campaigns are made by community members and not ED.

I don't think it does anymore and it was boring. The idea was great though because all was contain in a small little mission file.

all some people can do is complain !!!
what you guys think this is ?
a game ?

It is nice to see people not taking this so seriously.

the only thing I take seriously is skin making

Which makes ED look even more miserable.

I would think that including a dynamic campaign would probably require an extensive rewrite of the existing software. It's the same reason that features in FSX were not found.

If you look closely at FSX, you can see the architecture of FS2000. It goes back that far. I remember sitting in the audience of a gathering in Denver for the launch of FSX and an attendee asked one of the ACES staff why FSX was going to be written on top of the same code as FS2000, FS2004, etc. The answer? "If it's not broke, don't fix it." Including all of these nifty things would essentially require a completely new engine that MS neither had the time or inclination to do. So, the exact same engine that powered all those older versions of MSFS was used to power FSX, it just looked different. This led to one of the theories as to why FSX ran like crap on the highest powered machines of the day, it was bloated code.

MS claimed (correctly) that the old versions of MSFS were the benchmark that determined whether or not you had a 'real' PC. Back in the early 90s, if your PC could run MS Flight Simulator, you had a real PC. MS wanted to revive that claim with FSX. But, was that because your PC was struggling to run a sim with tons of new features, or was it struggling with running layer after layer of bloated code?

Fast forward to today. If you look at DCS, you can see the architecture of Flanker. The Russians are even more notorious about saving things and never throwing them away. The engine that powers DCS powered Flanker, it just has new code layered on top of the older one. Fixing that would require a completely new engine that DCS neither has the time or inclination to build.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

DCS will not create a dynamic campaign because to do so would require an extensive rewrite of code that the engine is not equipped to do. Sorry.

Ha ha ha.
It never cease to amaze me that this DC question still pops up from time to time.
I have been waiting since lock on, but ed does not seem to like DC at all.
so now I stop hoping and play that other old f16 sim who has one instead.




yes, IMHO it is very pointless.

So is EDGE completely new graphics code? Or just tweaked Flanker (or old) code?

I could swear the reason it took so long for EDGE to arrive was due to its being built from scratch. Mind you, the program could be modulized (spell?) - the base simulator with a graphics module, sound module, AI module, etc all plugged in to the base. Incidentally though, I don't think the module approach really caught on until the early 2000's; so, they could still be using the Flanker base with a new graphics engine tacked onto it.

Also, ED has no desire to include a DC whatsoever. Not going to specify exactly why (after all, who knows why ED does or doesn't do what they do) but that much is certain.

See, that's the thing.... if they can code a graphics engine (which I assume is EDGE) from scratch, why not do so for everything else? Did they really envision a "modular" sandbox sim on a non-modular set of code?

As for the DC, if they have no intention of doing one, why did they include that in the options of their poll?

As with everything else, there is desire and there is ability.

My guess is the truth is they could do it with the existing architecture if they devoted sufficient resources to it. It just wouldn't be easy or cheap.
It might have been cheap and easy using one written from the ground up with that in mind, but they didn't do that in the first place to save money. So they didn't invest a ton up front, and they don't relish the idea of investing a ton now.

So, to save money back then they made a decision that impacts their ability to do it for a cost-effective price now.

In other words, a notional version of DCS World with a dynamic campaign would require more money than they were willing to spend, either back then or now. If they could do it as easily as they can churn out a scripted campaign, and charge $10 for it, you can bet they would have.

That means it would cost significantly more to make one, they'd have to charge more (or perhaps don't see how they could integrate a DC as a paid DLC and a free one would lose them money), and they don't think the market of interested customers is large enough that they would make money on it even charging more.



The Jedi Master