This weekend people can fly Hornet and Su33 over Persion Gulf for Free.

I do not think one can have a more solid evidence ED is losing more customers than they can lure in with bling-bling and empty promises.
So much for Hornet becoming the new flagship, well maybe it is for the 12% users still there compared to A-10C days.

(yes, that's internet made up % so please go detail-ballistic somewhere else)

yep, they must be getting desperate to do this stunt

IMO, problem is that everything related to airframe and graphics has evolved but combat wise we are basically still at the same place we were in 2011, which means gameplay hasn't evolved at all at least not in terms of war environment.
So for some people, no matter how cool a module is sooner or later you have to deal with a sterile and repetitive combat whether you see it as an arcade or simulation game.

I'm not even sure what ED goal is because there is little words about bringing to DCS anything that would drastically improve war environment, instead you can get hints that they would like to implement whole world to open the market to civilian airframes.

I'm losing hope, again, on DCS overall because yes they are working on 'ludicrous bugs/unfinished features/bad implementation' but still everything related to war environment (dynamic war, properly implemented AI, etc..) seems to be will remain the same unless news announcements come out

They're currently working on missile modeling and guidance, like literally at this very moment. An improved damage model is also planned, although I think they might have tweaked the AI without mentioning it (or I missed the announcement). The previously near immortal MiG-15 now regularly has the pilot bail out after flying with damage for a period of time in my experience. AI is also supposed to get revised limitations, the first mentioned being g-limits, although I don't know what the status on this actually is.

By war environment i'm not referring to individual airframes or missiles but the whole war picture itself which requires core changes specially AI wise which currently is driven by script which is rather an extremely poor and cheap implementation.

I'm aware about missiles changes, which is why i have recently a few hope about DCS future but when i see no mention to anything war environment wise and even worse i see that they are aiming to features, earth simulation, to attract civilian stuffs .... my hopes get an instant hit

Completely agree with Oden and xXNightEagleXx.

ED seems to be struggling with ways to be more profitable...all the while ignoring what their own polling told them everyone wants to see. A dynamic campaign. Or at least...more immersive COMBAT experience. Every year that passes, I realize that they will never achieve the level of immersion that was achieved 20 years ago. Instead, they are going into GA and probably plan to release a bunch of unfinished civilian aircraft grasping at ways to make money.

Ugh

Fair enough. That is an area that DCS need improvement in. One of the most glaring issues for me at the moment is lack of command and control that makes organized large scale combat in single player more difficult than it should be. Although I think the mentioned AI improvements fall into this category, they won't solve everything.

Problem is that to have a dynamic war it needs at lot of work. First of all we need a high level AI that is capable to analyze and draw a strategy by issuing orders/objectives to fleets, squadrons and ground troops. This itself is basically a strategy game that runs regardless how the orders will be executed (simple dices, units controlled by ai, actual real players). Then at low level the AI need a complete overhaul that allows them to fully understand a given order and decide how to execute it. Implementation for these AI layers are drive by things like goal systems or behavior tree, instead now we have scripts that basically tells how the AI must behave which means basically zero intelligence...

BMS (+20 years) does offer this two layers of AI, and it does not even using any modern AI implementation techniques (behavior tree/goal systems/influence map) which would only bring the AI to a whole new level.

This is what makes me hate DCS, It could be better than anything out there....it has a lot of potential but .....it remains unused potential since 2011 and counting

This is the direction that Wags has taken DCS. He's a major force into which way it's going. Frankly, I liked things better in the old days when Stormin' Norman was involved with Lock On. But as will happen with Wags, he saw Norman as someone who might replace him so he figured out how to get rid of him.

How about that dynamic campaign?

Has it been released yet?

More or less this. Air to air missiles need a lot of work. Ground vehicle tracking needs a lot of work. I'd also like some new AI aircraft. Eurofighter, Rafale, new variants of other planes. Lots of other improvements are needed but they're coming very slowly. One small change I like with recent patches is you can see the exact orientation of an object in the mission editor when zoomed in. Was needed for such a long time. But still so much else left to improve.

Expensive maps that, while nice, are just too small is a problem as well.

If they made a Falcon 4.0 quality dynamic campaign, I'd probably buy every single module. Why they don't get this is beyond me.

Given that it's now 10 years since the first module arrived (original Black Shark) and everything since then has been delayed, bugged, incomplete and a shining example at management level of how not to integrate, test and release a product......just imagine the circus that a fully dynamic campaign would create! They probably 'get it' but are fully aware that their own level of incompetence would take them to a whole new level with obsolescence of operating systems, code and products that are just the tip of the iceberg. Plus, there is no-one that can live long enough to ever see it released.

From the weekend news: "The Hornet and Su-33 include all the missions and campaigns as the purchased versions"

How many missions and campaigns shipped with the Hornet?

From what i know there is just a mini campaign for the f-18, released today, and missions of the mini campaign that can be played individually. I've download it and i must say, it really looks like a very early access product.

Me too. As it is I haven't bought one of their products since LOMAC.

Tried Mbot Dynamic Campaign?

I get the effort but that solution is far from being even okay.

First of all that kind of solution is nothing new, it has been done like 2-3 years ago although the product i'm talking about never hit public (not even with any sort of teasing). To be honest it was even better since it was more like a real time strategy game that could generate mission scripts to be feed into DCS and read back to process it. It even had many in-game scripts to simulate things in realtime (eg. scrambling when enemy fighters got within airbase range, all this according to airbase status and available aircrafts). It never came to light because it was soon too obvious that for many reasons DCS AI simply sucks, scripting engine stability sucks (specially at that time), there was little interaction with map world (it required a lot of stupid turnarounds), and others things.

Dynamic campaign is not only about persistence (it would be naive to assume this), dynamic campaign is about real time action and reaction. It is about unpredictability and obviously a high level AI that analyzes the warzone and creates high level objectives made of a series low level objectives to sends to groups in the field.

In case of DCS the problem is that you could manage to simulate the high level AI (which honestly it really doesn't seem to be properly done is those campaigns) but still the low level AI is simply non existing due to its extremely poor implementation.

DCS relies on scripts to babysit the AI which is simply wrong. AI groups (fleet, flight, battalion) should receive a mission plan with specific order/task and being able to execute it by itself instead of having the need to specifically say to them how to manage the radar silence, which exactly static target is has to bomb, and so on so forth. Problem is that due to the lack of core AI implementation this is basically impossible and ED thoughts that maybe MODS would do this miracle for them.

In other words until DCS does not fix their core AI code there is little that can really be done to recreate a credible war environment. With all its cons BMS managed to do this a long time ago, so it is nothing impossible or unacceptable too much work, it is just that ED is a prove of how bad development can be done.

Well I got an answer guys on Steam via Wags himself:

Q:



A:

This is a joy to read it and if he exposes itself that much i have a good hope

Hey! That's some news right there! I had no idea it was in development, let alone heavy development.

There could be hope for this series yet.

Sounds very good.
Sadly I've heard good stuff so many times I've stopped caring.

When I see it I will believe it and until then my modules remains collecting dust now that i uninstalled DCS beginning this month.
When AI Viggen cannot hit a major size factory with rockets and neither the test-validation Su-25's in my evaluation mission I ran 3 minutes each time a new update arrived over the last year, enough is enough and I now consider all my modules a major mistake on my part.

Even my blood-sweat-and-tears created scripted dynamic missions went tits-up some updates ago due to core changes to airfields spawn points, hours of LUA coding down the drain - thank you so fekking much Wags.

That's a major issue and why we haven't seen a lot of user made missions/campaigns over the years. Without a stable version it's just a moving target and not worth the time for many.

Interesting about the dynamic campaign. Hopefully it turns out good. I have little to no interest in it.

Really want air to air missiles reworked, ground vehicle hit probability for air targets fixed, some editor changes and those new clouds to be implemented. Ban boxing in the mission editor would be great. Also, something about the load time for the PG map. Right now it is horrific.

On topic the Hornet feels great to fly. The cockpit looks wonderful too. Looks like there is no tutorial for weapon employment in game yet? I could only figure out how to use the AIM-9X in my limited time. Not sure how to switch to weapons to enable slaving for the radar on the right MFD.

Like Oden I'd believe it when I see it read about how awesome it. For a company known for their hype-machine I find it odd that such a major addition, one that has been clamored for by the masses, would be announced in response to an internet question. Or had they announced it officially prior?

Despite that, there remains the issue that the term 'dynamic campaign' is one that leaves a great deal of latitude. IL-2 and Strike Fighters were also marketed to include dynamic campaigns and I think many would agree that they fell short of expectations, or at least short of what one might envision when hearing the term. Longbow 2 has a 'dynamic campaign', but there is little dynamic about it. The front line moves?

I think many jetheads think of Falcon when dynamic campaign is uttered. And it's easy to see Wags' post and picture DCS jets and graphics in Falcon's campaign. I mean, that's what we really want right? Would we be satisfied if damage wasn't persistent, or squadrons and weapons stocks couldn't be depleted, or supply couldn't be affected, or if it were non-existent in the first place?

Would we be happy if it just means the front could move and either side could 'win'? That's a personal thing with no single answer. For me, a 'dynamic mission generator' isn't enough. But if ED pulled off something even approaching F4's level I'd start snapping up modules. Unless I missed it, there's no detail released on the scope of what this campaign might entail. If I lay Durandals down a runway I want the squadrons there shut down until it's repaired. And that requires engineers, who might have to be sent there, or who may have eaten a stick of CBU two days ago and can no longer answer that call. If I drop a bridge, the enemy needs to find another place to cross, not just go over the bridge on the next mission flown. If a radar is taken out there should be a gap until it's replaced. The logic that frags missions should be agile enough to react to ever-changing events as they unfold.

Creating a campaign with some dynamic elements, and creating a dynamic campaign are not the same thing in my view. I guess we'll just need to wait and see. I remain skeptical, but that isn't the same as hoping it doesn't come to be.

Good points DBond, but you are THE campaign master after all

For me, it would be OK with a fairly simple A to B campaign machinery for a starter - it is alot of coding needed and I'd say almost impossible to get all aspects in at a first try.
When I wrote my dynMis for IL2Dover I started off with having bombers reach a target and go back along with some escorts and a number of RAF CAP flights.
From there on one can add features often realised during testing the individual flights.
Rather long into development I arranged for win/lose triggers and thereafter specific effects for different missions such as RAF losing 100 octane fuel a few days if LW managed to sink a convoy, less planes in reinfocement for hitting a factory area, much later RAF reaction if a radar site was bombed (i.e. when bomber formation crossed the coast line and observer corps noticed the planes) and so on.

Start small and let it build up as testflying gives you the ideas of what to improve or add.

Now Dover missions are coded in C# and sadly DCS is in Lua code which is very very prone for runtime errors due to "free variables" and it is very easy to misinterpret variables and crap hits the fan.
After 15 years coding CTI missions in arma1, 2 and 3 I'd say even that environment is far more stable then this sad excuse lua represents.
Hopefully the future DCS campaign is off lua (c++ I'd assume) but that would most surely make it unaccessible for modders to expand and/or improve as they see fit, but if it grants us a more stable result it must surely be considered the better approach.

out of curiosity, the Su-33 is the FC3 add on or is it a new version ?

same

OK.

Free period extended until 2nd oct.
I guess not many pilots showed interest.
Will they ever understand they are running in the wrong direction?
No, how would they when complaints are blocked and banned.
Will ED need to replace Wags or will Wags start visiting other forums to figure out what's missing in DCS?

I don't think dynamic campaign is strictly necessary for a good experience. Better AI interactions are. Better weather and ATC/other services would help too. AWACS is worse than Movie Phone. The editor could be a lot easier to use. Easy editor = more and better mission content. If most multiplayer users had 1-3 wingman (that actually helped them in the mission!) typically you'd see an entire different dynamic.

Agreed Frederf, and my point wasn't to say it's necessary (but some sort of realistic combat environment is I'd reckon). But Wags himself, according to this thread, said they are heavy in development of one, and I think caution is advised before anyone gets too excited imagining the possibilities.

Really?

I spent a few hours downloading and installing (ok I didn't, the PC did it on its own) and then an other hour or so getting axis/keys assigned so I could just fly about and maybe fire a weapon or two. That was friday night / saturday. I was intending to spend some time flying the F-18 around the Persian Gulf today but when I tried to log in at around 1630 Eastern no joy. Then I go read the announcement and see that the free period ended at 1600 Eastern. They couldn't let it go until midnight?

Anyway, I uninstalled after that.

It was sort of fun once I got a minimum HOTAS setup functioning but it's just not worth the hours I would have to spend getting full HOTAS support set up for multiple aircraft. One would think that it would at least correctly detect proper axis assignments for CH Products, but no I had throttles assign to rudder pedals etc. by default.

Getting DCS setup has always been too much like work instead of play/enjoyment.

I re-downloaded the new 2017 MegaScenery Arizona and Nevada I bought a couple of years ago , 125+ GB, took me the whole weekend , the Hormuz Map must be somewhat smaller, how big is it ?

I guess it really goes to show how much my interest in DCS has vanished. I used to be enthusiastic about DCS. At some point I even thought that it might be my new platform for ww2 VR combat flight sim. But then things devolved into a hopeless mess during the long period of split between 1.5 and with 2.5 performance got worse and flying VR on the Normandy map wasn't really possible anymore (and from what I see nothing has been done to improve performance on that map in VR so far), and then going back to other modules like the Huey I started to discover that things worked worse instead of better (door gunners not doing anything anymore). In fact about everything I tried seemed worse rather than better, and the prospect of actually playing interesting missions and campaigns seemed just as distant as ever.

Anyway, the result of all that is that I couldn't find the motivation to spend time trying the new map or the f18 during the free weekend. I'd have jumped on that a few year ago, but now I'm just expecting to be disappointed. ED has a lot of work to make me hyped again, and this time around promises are not going to do it - good reviews and good word of mouth for FINISHED products might bring me back, so it's going to take a while before that's the case

for me is just lack of motivation and time - it actually works fine now with high FPS, its that I end always spending my time with another sim every time.

the Hormuz map - does anyone know how big it is ?

Hormuz is about 31G unpacked , so at a guess 20G to download it

so it is not a photo-real but a map like the Black Sea or Nevada

Very well said Flying Monkey!

I remember the free weekend,
I don't own the hornet....neither did my interest and the various youtube video's made upon release convince me to download it and test it for myself.
When the bug fixes die down to the A-10C level of one or 2 every 6 months, I might invest but it is currently a long way off before that happens