'Dynamic campaigns' are seemingly preferred because they don't ship with canned missions- so seemingly giving you a different game every time, but not really. The campaigns are really playing out the same way every time, usually there's a lot less specific goals in mind. The computer has to be programmed with a generic set of instructions that work in each and every circumstance, a one sized hat fits all- consequently, it has to do all things, but not necessarily exceeding really well at any of them. So while a canned mission might task you to attack and defend a bridgehead, then retreat or relocate and defend a new position or assault a new location, dynamic campaigns really don't achieve that level of 'dynamic' mechanics. It's more generally, attack, defend against attack, or follow a set of waypoints, destroying everything along the way.

The best dynamic campaign would be one run entirely by humans rather than by a computer.

Joe @ your wrong.

DCS will get dynamic campaing in future. Its been made in small steps because its way too complex and expensive to made in one part.



BMS -> there known bug in campaings where red side units wont shoot blue tanks if player is near. It will be fixed soon.



Best dynamic campaings are still in falcon, but thouse are so complex to make that microprose and lead pursuit are no more. So thats why DCS wont try to make it fast.

In future, all right And will require 16 core processor and 32 GB of memory I bet for ~ 5 years we will see a dynamic campaigns, DCS only release unfinished crap,and a lot of promises,how long ago combat helo.

Pretty cool Screengrab!

What map is that Joe?

I don't think my game looks that good.

Well, wrong!
Just look at Falcon4 (BMS for example). You have several types of different missions, I would dare to say more mission types than any Static campaign that I ever saw.
Yes, I admit that with static missions (in static campaigns) you can have all sorts of triggers and events that can result in your mission objectives being completely or drastically changed (sort like storyline). BUT on the other side the player will only successfully complete any static mission once since these missions always play the exact same way a thing that doesn't happen with a dynamic campaign since missions are automatically generated each time a campaign is started and depending on previous mission results - While yes, some missions in a dynamic campaign will or could trend to repeat themselves but since these missions are generated automatically and randomly the player will never have the EXACT same campaign experience everytime he/she starts a campaign.
Besides and also adding to the random factor, in a dynamic campaign every unit (aircraft, ground vehicles, buildings, etc...) that you or your allies or your enemies destroy will be destroyed in the future - A dynamic campaign keeps track of every unit and its status within the battlefield, because of this if you play an exact same mission that you previously played you most likely won't find the exact same enemies (aircraft, air defences, etc...) that you did last time (a thing that of course doesn't happen in a static campaign)

Regarding "a dynamic campaign run entirely by humans rather than by a computer", this means that:
1- You must play in Multiplayer.
2- At least one human (for each side) must play as a Supreme Commander.
And guess what --> I don't like to play combat flight sims in Multiplayer (except for very rare times and ONLY in CO-OP) and I also don't like to act as a Supreme Commander (specially in a combat flight sim). So for me, the best campaign is still an AI controlled and generated dynamic campaign.

I won't say that there couldn't be some advantages in a static campaigns (for example in recreating historical missions) BUT the advantages of a dynamic campaign far surpasses the ones in a static campaigns (for example: repeatability and randomness).

There's nothing more wrong than that! If history taught us anything is that history repeats itself. If flight sim devs want to have more customers they must be innovative and making dynamic campaign is one way to be "innovative".
Besides while making a dynamic campaign is harder, more time and resource consuming, once there's a stable dynamic campaign engine created for a game/sim, those game/sim devs, modders or anyone else will be able to create a new (dynamic) campaign much faster than even a new static campaign.

What's going on here?

3 Apaches taking off on a recon mission.

They are all on the same landing pad.

There is another Apache hovering over them waiting to land on the same pad.

Behind them, you can see 2-3 empty landing pads.

Who is in charge of traffic control?

I had the throttle on full power and when I tried to take off,

the warning system said:

"Main rotor transmission failure"

My co-pilot is screaming in my ears:

"We need to set her down, Sir!!"

The master alarm is blaring!

Have some mercy,  traffic control also has the right to the lunch break
About this  I told you, then cheat is useful

Heavy assault

While they go on lunch break, there are 4 Apaches worth almost $210 million that may be destroyed in a single accident.

thealx YOU JOKING ?! This is from game? without Photoshop?

just diffuse glow filter to make clouds white instead gray (another kind of cheating =))

Family picnic!

That's the Apache father, the Apache mother and the Apache son

Few screenshots Thealx models.

Now the trick is to fly through there without clipping the walls with the rotors or landing in the drink...

On a related note, and because I too love blatting along those rivers and canals:


An' hup...


An' over.


Foamy!


It's like the tunnel of love. With gunships.


Hope I measured that rotor right...


Victory!

The ones in Yemen are the most perilous and difficult to navigate through.

Just like beggars canyon back home...........

Do those Air Traffic Controller know what they are doing?

That's me in the blue circle.

See how many other choppers plus two Osprey are near me?

There are actually 2 more Apache and Comanches behind me that you can't see in the screenshot.

Look at the Apache to my left which was just a few meters away.

If it was any closer, the end of our rotors would had collided.