1. ED prioritized a complex mission editor because its better suited for any defense contract use than a dynamic campaign would ever be. Instructors need to build a reliable scenario with a clear understanding of what could potentially happen and not a gameplay mechanism that generates content for the end user as a means to keep them interested.

2. The way Falcon 4 handles missions is quite a bit different than how ED does it with DCS. As a game it was built from the ground up with integrating into a DC in mind. So for the sake of argument a DC that uses the same sort of concepts found in the F4 campaigns would need ED to make some serious changes to the game in order for it to become a reality.

3. The DCS mission file format is an open format. And as we have seen there are community efforts to create dynamic campaigns either through the use of generating mission files or changing a live mission via the scripting engine. So its not something that is completely closed off and only ED can work toward.

One of the things that bugs me with any DC related discussion is that people tend to ignore the massive differences between DCS and F4 with regard to ground objects. The overall density of map objects is the huge difference. DCS maps have a crazy number of objects and road networks that exist on its maps. For instance the Black Sea map has a little over 26,000 powerlines on it, and its common for other object types to exist in the 1000s range. In terms of roads I wouldn't be shocked if the much smaller Nevada still has 100s of km more roads than any F4 map. It very well might be possible that the city of Tbilisi has more objects in it than the entire Korean theater map in F4 has. Then you have to translate what that means for AI and the overall difference between how the two games handle ground combat. Which to be honest I don't know a whole lot about. In my time playing F4 I never saw 2 ground armies square off in 3d, for DCS that is a different matter.



To be fair I don't think ED have ever come out saying that they are actively working on a dynamic campaign. If they did it would just be added to the list of long term projects that they have talked about and haven't quite become a reality yet. Which would cause much strife and anxiety over the progress of such a project on the forums. I understand the value that some people place on a dynamic campaign, but I'd rather see efforts put toward enhancing scripting engine functionality. In my eyes a DC is just a DC, but new scripting engine features is DC + a bunch of other stuff... Possibly even multiple DC code-bases to choose from.