Work on Combat-Helo resumes on Sept 29th.

YES! GIMME GIMME!

Whoooppeeeeeeeeeeee

Good luck, hope it goes well

YES! Despite Phase 1 is a cockpit demonstrator and shooter I looking forward to see what is it like what they have done so far.

Actually, At this point I'd rather just see them release a DCS module.


Sorry, but reading the post just really took away my excitement for this. It seems we're a very, very, very, very long way off from ever getting anything 'real' with the Apache in it.

Isn't that actually a good suggestion, has this been considered? The 3d work and code done on the cockpit could be reused for DCS certainly?

Another flight plan?
Who in turn? Twenty or thirty? no, thank you,again empty words.

I also would like to know if anyone has brought this thought to the developer, he says they need a new 3d engine for historical campaigns well DCS already has that.

Why do you guys think that Flex isn`t aware of what DCS has to offer? He certainly is...

I hope he sticks to his vision. I wouldn't like seeing every combat sim nowadays being reduced to a DCS module.

+1

+2

Let's please not turn this forum back to a DCS debate again. Flex has stated multiple times where he stands on the subject, let's leave the DCS module discussion in the DCS sections.

Well I sure hope we get the game at some point relatively soon.

+3

+4

-C-

Yeah I'd love to see "their" vision, but waiting for them to find a 3D engine for large terrain for campaigns sounds like this could take a long time... personally I would love to see their cockpit and avionics in the DCS Georgian and Nevada maps....after all, it is their vision and work done lovingly on the avionics, cockpit, windshield, rain effects,physics, excetra...and heck charge 40 bucks for the module and use the funds to help with their own vision complete product

Well, what are the other options besides DCS?

BIS' engine for Arma? It's large terrain, but only on foot or wheels/tracks. From the air things look pretty cramped.
CryEngine? Again, good on the ground, not so up high.
Thirdwire's? Perhaps making the most sense as that's another indie dev who'd likely license pretty cheap, but I don't know what other limits they'd have to accommodate from things TK just never thought were important or doable (like MP).
CloD's? Ok, let's all laugh...


Anyway, there are few obvious routes. There may be some others that aren't readily apparent, but I'm sure they've explored many we've not heard of, not thought of, or thought feasible.


The Jedi Master

A nice idea.

It just depresses me that it's going to take over a year before we get this in a complete form, between the dumbed down action version he mentions making to help fund the full fledged sim and wanting a better engine for bigger missions. Either we'll get nothing in the next year or we'll get a small playable gun range which isn't much fun IMO.

I've been very excited for combat helo, the playable gunner seat in multiplayer might allow me to convince one of my friends to actually play a sim with me. But damned if I don't want a flyable AH64 soon, the wait is killing me.

That's why many here are eager to see this project to be released being totally independent of any DCS:whatever. We urgently need an alternative to DCS:whatever! As a flight sim fan (since the 80's) and having own and played almost every combat flight sim since then I must say that I find the DCS sims dull and very unimmersive (the lack of Dynamic campaign being one of many reasons) and because of that I don't own the vast majority of DCS titles and don't intend to!
You're right when you say that the only "real modern alternative" are the Thirdwire's sims and actually these are the only modern sims that I play nowadays.
That's why I think we need projects like this (Combat-Helo) and more important so that these projects be completly independent of DCS:whatever.

BTW, there's an another project that seems in a more advanced state than Combat-Helo which is also indie and completly independent of DCS which is the "Seven-G F/A-18 Simulator". I'm also following this project closely.

Resuming, I'm happy that Flexman didn't decide to go the DCS:whatever way! While I agree that the idea of going the DCS:whatever module way could somehow be tempting, I wouldn't buy such module - IMO there's more to a PC combat flight sim than just avionics and flight models!

It's a Russian thing. All the Russian flight sims I have (Il-2/CloD, Flanker/LOMAC/DCS, ROF) suffer from that same issue of being, well, dull. When you're in combat it's exciting because of the combat, but just flying around normally it feels sterile. After having pretty much nothing but Russian sims for the past decade...I think other than TK's no-frills sims last one I bought that wasn't was CFS3 on release!!...I've grown used to that, but I remember the older sims fondly.
The Jane's series was best, the Dynamix ones were good, 1942: PAW/Euro Air War was good, even some of the smaller series like EF2000 or the iMagic ones seemed to get that nebulous "feeling" down better.




The Jedi Master

MAN, the old day!! How I miss the old days (specially regarding sim and also because I was a few years younger). Just don't forget the Microprose titles such as B-17 and B-17 II (this last one is still one of my favourites of all times!!).

Anyway Flexman's concept regarding Combat-Helo sim is to revive the feeling of those sims that you and I mentioned and I definitly would NOT want to see anything such as a "Combat-Helo becoming a DCS module" to ruin this concept.

This may seem odd to many and somehow controversial but I would rather see this project "to die" than to see it turning into a "DCS module"! But what I would rather see is that this project finally sees the "light of the day" and finally bring us the so missed realistic-looking combat flight sim with the great feeling from the 90's sims.

What exactly makes Jane's different from DCS?

The sims Origin built? Well, let's put it this way: think of DCS when you're NOT in the cockpit. When you're in the menus, the various screens, picking loadouts for your missions, reading the briefings, the debriefs, etc.
The best thing you can say is "it's functional".

Compared to the Jane's games, DCS' menu system was designed by one drugged-out guy in his basement between meth episodes...because perhaps that's all his mind could focus on when high. Same with all the other Russian sims. You'd think it would be relatively easy to load up those old sims, or look at screenshots in old magazines even, and emulate that setup. But no, they decided "functional is all that is needed" and you're left feeling empty...you KNOW you're in a simulator.

DCS is awesome in the cockpit, but only there. Jane's was awesome wherever you were, and even the lighter titles like USNF which simplified the flying and fighting were great because the menu system was just as good as the full-on ones like Longbow or F-15. You felt like you were a combat pilot even before you strapped in.


The Jedi Master

So it's better because it has text based fluff? Ehhh, I've never cared for backstory and the DCS menus are fine.

I would like a flight sim that focuses on personalities and story as well as flying but for me to be impressed it would require a lot of voice acting, good writing and cinematics.

If you're asking this is because you never played any Jane's titles, like for example Jane's Longbow 2 (IMO the best of all Jane's titles)!

To reply to your question, I'll sim it up:
-> Like Jedi said the menus - For example the menus in Jane's Longbow 2 made the player feel like he was on the REAL AIRBASE or Military facility! This is also and specially true where you were on the briefings which made the game much more immersive (even before playing an actual mission) than DCS where briefings mostly consists in a limited mission editor.
-> DYNAMIC CAMPAIGNS (did I ever mentioned this in the past?? ) on titles such as Jane's Longbow 2 or SEMI-DYNAMIC campaigns (on titles such as Jane's F/A-18 and F-15) which in both cases allows the player to keep moving on the campaign even if he or she fails a mission. There's nothing more frustrating and less realistic and in the end arcadish than not being able to move in a campaign because the player failed a mission, many of the times due to a single aircraft or tank that wasn't destroyed (and should have been according to mission parameters). It's curious that DCS games are considered ultra-realistic because they supposedly have ultra-realistic flight models, avionics, etc... but at the same time they have completly arcadish campaigns and missions (an another example of this is the existance of deep-strike missions in DCS:A-10, missions that in real life would never be done by an A-10!!)
-> IMO, what makes a Combat Flight Simulators great is not only the realistic and/or high-fidelity aircraft that you control/fly but also the scenario where that same aircraft flies and fights in. What's the point of having a realistic and/or high-fidelity aircraft if the world (or the rest) is just dull, sterile and unimmersive?? This is the biggest advantage of Jane's sims: Jane's sims were not only great regarding the aircraft that were modeled and/or controlled by the player but also great modeling the "world" surrounding them while DCS sims are only great modeling the aircraft controlled by the player while being completly dull and lame regarding the rest!

AFAIK that have changed. You can proceed in Campaign even you failed a mission.


That´s because there is no playable fast mover/bomber yet in DCS series. So if you have only the A-10C to fly, then you have to make such deep-strikes or let the AI do it.

I of course agree on all other points you and Jedi have made.
Regarding the menue screens: Wouldn`t that be weird to have, say a american built hangar and or base in the menue screen and you want to fly a russian aircraft (i.e. Su-25/Ka-50)? Janes (LB2) have had only american types in game so it was ok to have a american style base as the menue screen. And you know, there are so many people out there who would just whine about that, I guess.

Sure, it would be great to just have a render of the aircaft type for the arming screen or something like this.

Flex concept to have the "menues" in 3D game engine is interesting and I look forward to see if that is working well. But again, that would not work for EDs sims.

LOL, no it wasn't text-based! You SAW everything. You heard things. Some sims even had setups where you could interact with other pilots between missions. There WAS good voice acting (especially compared to some recent sims) and pretty decent writing. Cinematics were restricted to the Origin non-Jane's games like Strike Commander and Wings of Glory.

In fact, if not for a few questionable design decisions, Wings of Glory would've been my favorite WWI sim of all time! The bad part was forcing too many enemy encounters on you when you had a realistic ammo load and while planes would go down with only a handful of hits, they had you fight your way TO the target, AT the target, and BACK from the target, and rarely did I still have any ammo for the BACK time. Still, it was IIRC the first WWI sim to make the plane creak under g's. Rockets and incendiary ammo vs zeppelins... Ah WoG, we miss you when you weren't being frustratingly difficult...

As for the airbase idea, how hard is it to make it a joint base? From Desert Storm to present day it's pretty normal for multiple nations to share the ramp space at one airport near the conflict zone.

I don't think the premise is unachievable. I just think the resources are stretched so thin the idea is discounted at the design stage (if it's thought of at all) so they can focus on the in-cockpit experience. What they've missed is that a sim is more than just being "in the cockpit".




The Jedi Master

Sounds interesting, I don't know I never got a chance to play it.

On another note, if anyone is looking for something to tide you over for Combat Helo, there's a really cool project going on for ArmA 2 that makes the AH64D much more detailed and realistic.

Here's a video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zBMB8WjiKU&feature=relmfu

Sounds like we might get it this year so.

When and in what DCS/ED sim did this started to happen?

Anyway and lets suppose that you're right -> having a static campaign where you can advance even if you fail a mission but still that doesn't affect the next mission is only marginally better than a campaign that doesn't allow you to advance if you fail a mission.




Then it's very simple: Don't make those sort of missions (deep strike missions) for an A-10C!! This is just as stupid has having intercept missions on a helicopter sim such as Jane's Longbow 2 and you don't have intercept missions (or any other unrealistic kind of missions) in Jane's Longbow 2 (for example), do you??
IMO, this just proves what I've been saying: the ED guys just don't care about anything which is outside the cockpit itself!

I think I shot down maybe half a dozen fast movers in Longbow actually over the years.
As for one mission affecting the next in a campaign, how realistic is that really? How much can one pilot effect an entire military campaign?

If the campaign is one of those "you fly several times a day going back to the same spot" types, yes it should reflect previous battle damage/unit attrition in the area, but I've done that in Il-2 and UGH was it boring! You feel like you're reflying the same mission over and over with different times of day and more wrecks around each time.

If it's a "you fly every day or two and keep attacking different targets or flying different types of missions" types, then it doesn't really matter if you took out that bridge yesterday as you attack the airfield today and then the shipyard tomorrow. MAYBE there will be some sort of "less enemy air presence at shipyard if airfield attack succeeded" feature, but all too often you won't notice.



The Jedi Master

In the Georgian Oil War campaign in DCS Black Shark, the game will make you fight a different mission depending on the results of the preceeding mission. ED have not created other semi-dynamic campaigns yet AFAIK, but the tools are supposedly there to change subsequent missions to a degree based on what happens in the current mission. It's not fully dynamic, but branching is better than fully static IMO.

I'm not well versed enough to comment otherwise.

I hope Combat Helo does well. Competition is good for the consumer and variety is the spice of life, so more sims/more aircraft is a good thing as far as I'm concerned, whether CH is successful on its own or whether it becomes a DCS Module (which seems very unlikely).

So did I, but that's not what I meant: One thing is in Longbow 2 (for example) having to shot down an enemy airplane or helicopter that was threatening you (for example in Longbow 2 I even managed shot down enemy Mig-29s with Stinger missiles) other completly diferent is playing a "what-if" intercept mission where for example the player needs to intercept ande destroy enemy incoming Mig-29s with his Apache helicopter (which is totally unrealistic and rubish) and deep strike missions while playing with an A-10 is just as realistic as this! But I believe that in the end you always knew what I meant with my previous post...




Well, "one mission affecting the next in a campaign" usually seen in dynamic campaigns is definitly much more realistic than Static campaigns where the player can't advance if it fails a mission (time doesn't stop, I'm sure you and everyone else here knows it ) and where the damage that you inflicted on the enemy in the previous mission doesn't affect the same enemy on the next mission (which is seen in Static campaigns)!
If you destroy an enemy target you should expect that same target will continue to be destroyed, at least for a considerable lenght of time (for example in the following mission you should see that same target as destroyed). Or if you destroy, lets say a considerable number of enemy aircraft or tanks in a mission or sequence of missions you should expect that the number of enemy air forces and tank assets available will be considerably less in the following missions! What's the point for a military force to bomb/attack the enemy if it doesn't expect that many or most enemy units and assets eventually get destroyed or "put out of service"??

Yes, I admit that the attrition that the player inflicts on enemy forces in a dynamic campaign may sometimes happen a bit too fast but that's a gameplay consideration. But yes it's realistic to expect that the target, airplane, tanks, etc... that you destroy in one mission is still destroyed in the next mission, afterall that target, airplane, tanks WAS ACTUALLY DESTROYED!

Humm, didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up!

While a semi-dynamic (or branching) campaign still isn't a dynamic campaign, I completly agree that a semi-dynamic campaign is definitly much better than a fully static campaign!

There's nothing I hate more than not being able to progress in a campaign because I failed a mission, especially when it's because it's difficult. I dislike being forced to replay the mission ad infinitum until I crack it.

However, my point was more "how much would mission success or failure affect pilot X"? While some pilots might be sent to the same target over and over day after day, others will find their next mission has little to nothing to do with their last, success or fail.
A locked campaign where you don't progress till you win is cheap to make...each mission knows the outcome of the last (you won!) so you proceed from there. However, all too often those campaigns ignore it anyway. You crater an airfield, but next mission you still get swarms of enemy planes!

A branching campaign seems to me to the best compromise because you just use the same mission and have 2 sets of preconditions: either they won and there are fewer planes in the next mission, or they lost and there are more. You still are going after the fuel storage area, though. No "keep attacking the airfield till it burns enough for the campaign logic to accept" which is prone to interpretation. Telling me I did it because I blew up 1 hangar is just as unsatisfying as telling me I failed when every object I can see is burning because "you needed 3 craters in areas X Y and Z for the runway to be inactive".

Quite simply I've played many, MANY scripted, branching, and dynamic campaigns over the years, and just being dynamic =! good. Il-2's dynamic campaign was one example. I used Lowengrin's 3rd party one when I bothered because Il-2's was so mind-numbingly dull and repetitious.
Longbow 1 had a scripted branching campaign that rocked. LB2 had a semi-dynamic one with scripted missions that would appear during certain windows or not at all in between the random generated ones. EECH had a great dynamic campaign that would inevitably die with a whimper as the enemy-base-takeover bug reared its head and the advance ground to a halt (although I understand the modders fixed this YEARS later, after I gave it up).
I've also seen dynamic campaigns that ignored attrition! You would never run the enemy out of weapons/tanks/planes because I guess the designers thought that sort of victory was too "easy."

So just because a campaign is considered dynamic doesn't mean it will be good. Likewise scripted doesn't mean replayability will be zero.



The Jedi Master

I forget which mission it was but I played a mission in Blackshark 2 that I really thought was well done. It's a night mission and you take off with the goal of simply doing a fly around, during the mission you get a call on the radio that there's a convoy trying to escape an engagement or something and you're to enter their coordinates, find them and destroy them before they make it into town. This is the type of mission I personally want to see, make things more personal and interesting; give each mission a story instead of just feeling like a mindless turkey shoot.

So far every campaign I've played basically feels exactly like that, a mindless turkey shoot, take off, fly X distance, kill X targets, return to base.

Reading Apache by Ed Macy has really made me question all this, he talks about taliban insurgents climbing trees to spot for a mortar crew, firing flechette rockets into the trees to take out the mortar crew that's raining down fire on royal marines and later on a mission where he coops with a Harrier jet that drops a bomb on a ridge line while the two apaches do clean up on running insurgents. I don't see this type of mission in other flight sims, albeit I haven't played Jane's games or any of the other older flight sims people always rave about.

I do hope Combat helo is successful and has a good campaign.

Please don't get me wrong but it really puzzles me when you say that EECH campaign while LB2 campaign is semi-dynamic! To me it seems clear that LB2 campaign is definitly dynamic (and not semi-dynamic), since for example:
-> The more enemy ground units (tanks for example) that you destroy the more attrition you will inflict in that particular or in those enemy formations even if you fail the mission's main objective (just like EECH for example) - A thing that doesn't happen in a semi-dynamic campaign!
-> When one friendly or enemy army formation (battalion for example) decides to launch an offensive that's not due to mission specification but this happens when that army formation is ready for it - The army formation is reinforced and with a high level of supplies.
-> Yes, it's true that sometimes you get scripted missions (the rescue POWs mission for example) but for the rest of missions aren't dependent of any branch tree (like happens in a semi-dynamic campaign) but instead they spawn randomly accordingly to factors such as your actions on previous missions, the past and present actions of other units (friendly and enemy) and of course a random factor (anyway, just like happens in EECH).

The only diferent in how the campaigns work in LB2 and EECH is the following:
-> In LB2 one mission equals one day. While the EECH campaign happens in real time. So the diference is that LB2 campaign is a "turn based" dynamic campaign while the EECH is "real time".


I do agree that just because a campaign is dynamic it doesn't mean that it will be good, but an "average" dynamic campaign is IMO much better than a "very good" static campaign (and even semi-dynamic) even if it's only due to the fact that a dynamic campaign which is always random gives the player a much higher replayability value to the player (everytime you play a dynamic campaign it's not always the same due to it random mission generating nature).
Also a semi-dynamic campaign is not random in nature since you always know that if you win a mission you get the "X mission" as the following mission while if you fail that same mission you get the "Y mission" instead so this will definitly limit a semi-dynamic campaign replayability value!

BlackShark 1, was one of the three only ED games that I purchased (the other two where Flanker 2 and Lock On) and IMO my favourite BlackShark mission was one that you had to escort a Mi-8 which was going to pick up a downed Su-25 pilot which was hidden on a housing complex (near a river bank). In this mission you would only fight against enemy infantry (one of the best features of Blackshark, IMO) which was composed of enemy insurgents that would come out from a nearby forest and going after the pilot - As expected you must eliminate the enemy infantry threat so that the Mi-8 could land an pick up the pilot. Very thrilling and original mission inded.

IMO, the main problem of most combat helicopter sims isn't IMO that you must "take off, fly X distance, kill X targets, return to base", IMO the main problem is that in most combat helicopter sims the "X targets" are for the most part enemy tanks or other vehicles (sometimes "escorted" by mobile air defence systems such as Shilkas or Tunguskas) and there's a complete lack of infantry units (which composes the VAST MAJORITY of ANY army formation). BlackShark while having a great modeling of infantry units unfortunally only uses infantry in a few missions (specially in the campaign). Most of BlackShark's missions still consists in the typical blow up enemy tanks and other vehicles stuff!

Nothing like killing people with 30mm grenades, ey?


I don't think CH will do this kind of "combat", it should be force-on-force, hunting tanks and providing CAS. But on their site it does say counter-insurgency...

It's a gruesome and grim business, but if you're making a simulation shouldn't it be honest and realistic? How much tank hunting do Apache's do in Afghanistan? Are there ANY opposing vehicles besides 4x4's?

All footage I've watched since that war started has been tanks blowing up buildings, soldiers firing into mountains and down streets, apaches/harriers/warthogs/cobras taking out 4x4 vehicles with guns mounted on them, people and buildings. So if Combat helo boils down to the same DCS 'BS' of blowing up tanks for hours on end I'm going to be a very disappointed panda bear. It's a sterile feeling experience and I think it's a contributing factor to why so few people still play flight sims these days.

The game is supposed to be set in Afghanistan so that type of stuff is exactly what I expect to see, taking out insurgents, covering friendly troops and eliminating strongholds and such.

If you guys go back and read some of the earlier threads by Flex and AD, you'll see that not only are they wanting to implement a force-on-force conventional war scenario with Iran invading Afghanistan, but you'll also see some clarification on what the COIN campaign involves. Flex has posted numerous times about the complexity he is trying to implement into that style of gameplay.

According to Flex's earlier posts, and I am paraphrasing (sorry Flex if I'm wrong or out of line), it's not going to be hop in the Apache, go to this waypoint, and blow up everything and everyone in sight. There will need to be recon and forethought conducted and engagements must be done within the ROE. Sometimes you may have to observe the individuals for a time period to determine if they are indeed hostiles. What's more, a faction-based system is involved, with various groups, both official and/or international as well as unofficial local or criminal groups. The actions you take, or don't take, may have multiple and opposing reactions among the various groups.

Still sound like a turkey shoot? And I agree with Redpiano's statement above. A simulation doesn't have to be excessively gory, but it should be honest and realistic.

All those pacifist tree-huggers that make videos showing Apaches or any other coalition troops shooting insurgents (ahem "peaceful citizens of their country") normally only show the few seconds of the killshot, they don't show the previous hour of raw footage in which the "honest shoemaker" is digging an IED into a road or placing an explosive in the trunk of his car. I think flight simulations are generally aimed at intelligent individuals, that if they're smart enough to read a manual and be able to start up a complex aircraft, they have the maturity and judgement to understand context (simulated combat or not)... Sorry, rant complete.

Sounds good, I do hope it turns out so.

I'm a little curious how all this is going to come to fruition though. I mean now he's only one guy working on this project no? Is all this stuff going to make it into the final product?

Going back now and looking at older blogs which I hadn't done before I see there's apparently a lot more work done than he's really put out there in videos and such, but with the fact that he wants a new 3d engine for the game and this action based side game I have to wonder how much work he has ahead of him and if it's just going to end up throwing CH into development limbo where great games go to die.

Yes as Raptor said, if you don't like watching people die, then don't watch the Apache guncam vids. That is what it is supposed to do people. It is a weapon of absolute terror, designed to rain hell and death on anything not on its' side.

Combat-Helo is dead. Long live Combat-Helo.

Cheers

Oh no, AD...I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic.

Awesome post.

There's a new combat helo in town : P

Uh...I have absolutely no idea what that's supposed to mean.




The Jedi Master

Well it's obvious we have totally different definitions of what semi-dynamic is. Your definition is what I call "static branching". F4 was fully dynamic because you never had a predefined mission, and LB2 was a perfect example of semi-dynamic. The scripted missions will likely happen, you just don't know when exactly. The nonscripted missions are indeed dynamic, but the scripted ones form "chapter breaks" in the overall experience. They also have a semi-dynamic nature themselves, as certain aspects of those missions will always be the same while others will change each time you hit it.

FYI I have the LB2 strategy guide still from 1997, and it states there are 15 scripted missions for the campaign. Conditions are generally "75% chance if armor in sectors 1 and 2 advances to PL Pear" or along those lines. Some are 90%, some are 75%, but 2 of the first 3 are only 20%, so you may not ever see them.



The Jedi Master

This sim is as dead as Fighter Ops.

It is mostly not dead at all.
Patience young(?) Padawan.

+1
one year too late written.

Wow, no offence but if you want to be negative, go elsewhere and be a downer.

I'm with Jazjar on this one.

These guys took on a project with minimum pay and a lot of stress. They've come a long way since the initial concept was discussed. They have invited sim members input and on some occasions included our suggestions.

They don't want to dump "just another game" on the market, they want it as close to perfect as they can.

The easy way would have been to release something not completed and then released updates (Microsoft ?), but they didn't. I for one respect them for doing that.

Finally, I have never been in that situation so am not willing to criticise something I have no experience of.

I for one, will buy this when release. Even if it's just as a vote for independant developers.

Rant over .....

Cheers,

Andy

Flex just tweeted about the Kickstarter for UK, I bet this means he'll put Combat helo up. I REALLY hope he puts it up at a reasonable goal or it just won't go anywhere like all sims that have been put on kickstarter, but finally a way to put money into CH.

The problem really is when you're a 1-man developer, and you've got another paying job...what can you do? If he dumps the job in favor of CH development, he needs enough to live on as well as pay for the game. If he keeps the job, he'll need far less but it will naturally take a lot longer. I do hope this works out for him, though. With the apparent vanishing act of the Apache from the DCS roadmap (it was announced before Black Shark IIRC but by the time FC2 came out it was announced A-10C would be next and the Apache permanently vanished from their vocabulary) CH is going to be literally the only game in town, and will likely sell even better.

It's good that KS is finally over the pond, though. There are a lot of good UK devs that didn't want to try and "work around" the US-only issue.



The Jedi Master

I just imagine that getting kickstarter money would let him pay other programmers and such to help him work on the game. Isn't he the only one working on it now because funding fell through?

Don't get me wrong but it seems to me your definition of or what you call dynamic is in fact "real time" instead. It's possible to have a dynamic campaign that's not "real time", like for example a "turn base" dynamic campaign which is basically what LB2 campaign is -> You play a mission, the mission ends, the results are computed and the next mission is generated accordingly with what were the results of the previous mission (if a certain ground unit was sucessfull on it's advance, how many unit were destroyed and impact that it will have on the reserves, etc...)
Regading the "15 scripted missions for the campaign" in LB2 is a situation that I'm certain it also happens with Falcon4 which is what I call a "mission pool" from where missions can be picked up randomly -> the diference is that I'm sure Falcon4 "mission pool" is much more wider than LB2's. A similar thing also happens with Strike Fighters 2. Do you also consider Strike Fighters 2 campaigns to be semi-dynamic instead of dynamic?

Anyway and resuming with LB2 campaign you get:
-> If a ground unit (friendly or enemy) sucessfully advances that same territory will be occupied by that ground unit on the next mission.
-> If you kill a big number of ground units of a certain enemy army formation (battalion?) that army formation will lose a considerable number of units on the field (which refects on the next mission) and deplete that same formation's reserves faster.
-> The same thing happens regarding air units (helicopters)
-> The missions are completly random (except for a few special ones such as the POW rescue mission) and everytime you start a campaign the missions that spawn are diferent even if all missions end sucessfully (not a feature of a semi-dynamic campaign).
-> If the insert recon special forces missions ends sucessfully you'll get a much better intel on enemy forces.

Well, if this isn't being dynamic I sincerely don't know what more it (the LB2 campaign) needs to be "trully dynamic" (in your eyes of course)??

The campaign in Longbow 2 certainly worked well and was convincing, but it was actually fairly simple compared to other dynamic campaigns. Here is a quote from an article with an interview with the developer of the campaign for the canceled Jane's A-10, which was supposed to use the same campaign:

SF2 campaigns are fully dynamic in that they're not scripted at all, but there are a limited number of mission types and each are fairly scripted in how they are done (ie for airfield attack, you take off, you fly a few waypoints to target area, at target area you have standard airfield ADA which consists of AAA and SAMs depending on era/theater, and fight enemy CAP at that location...all airfield attacks are like that...you never get "bounced" only halfway there by a roving patrol, you never find the target uncovered by bandits).

So yes, SF's are fully dynamic they're just very limited. Il-2's stock dynamic campaigns were the same way.

The 15 scripted missions in LB2 are VERY scripted however, such as the POW mission. There are elements far more complex than anything the dynamic campaigns alone ever do.



The Jedi Master

In the end, I think, it all boils down to what we perceive it's happening...

Me? I'm just hoping that I'm still alive by the time it gets released.

You know, I'm really rooting for this sim. I will even go so far as to say this is guaranteed money in the bank. That's easy for me to say, though, since I'm not the one investing in it.

Still, this game really has no competition and the market is locked and loaded for it. If I thought DCS was going to actually compete against it I might be more skeptical. But as far as I've been able to tell, DCS does NOT have an Apache in the works any time soon. Further, even if they did, I'm not sold on DCS as the best thing since sliced bread, especially in single player. There is a niche here dying to be filled and, from the little we've seen, Combat Helo has the potential to fill a desperately wanted niche. As long as the sim isn't a dog it almost can't fail.

Unfortunately, I'm not hearing much to make me enthusiastic. I'm not even hopeful anymore. I'm more of a "if they build it, I'll buy it, somebody let me know when it's on the shelf for purchase."

DCS, and LOMAC and Flanker before it, were never strong in SP.

Quite frankly, if someone else did a study sim of the A-10C it's quite likely we'd like it more than ED's. However, the odds of that happening are worse than winning the lottery, so if you want the A-10C in combat, DCS is it. So I don't doubt that even if it was a lower-fidelity sim of the Apache than ED would make, I'd probably enjoy CH's one more.




The Jedi Master