Honestly, the Sim does need a dynamic campaign generator. I'm beginning to get a handle on the switchology and am getting through the missions. It is a shame to think that after going through such a steep learning curve that there is nothing to look forward to other than another aircraft in a relatively predictable world. The dynamic campaign generator would take some time to write but the payoff would be that the aircraft being created would feed this engine. It's a win, win situation. It would basically be a database manager with tokens to manipulate and scores to keep over the grid areas. I would estimate about 2000 man hours of programming(50 weeks 1 skilled person). It can be sold as a add on module. Instant longevity for all aircraft modules. A tremendous payoff.

Personally I believe it's possible to create a dynamic campaign for DCS without any extensive rewrite of the current DCS code.
For this you would need an external campaign generator (basically an external software) that creates a campaign mission (something quite feasible since the DCS mission file is simple text file) and a way for this same software to read the last mission results (if I'm not mistaken DCS creates a debriefing log file at the end of each played mission) so that this software can create/generate the next mission and so on.
This is what happens for example with IL2 1946 and WOFF.


However regarding the question "Is there ever going to be a dynamic campaign?" (in DCS), IMO the answer is a big NO!

In all honesty, if they came out with a DC and asked people to pay for it as a paid DLC, I am sure a lot of people would. There would be whiners, there will always be whiners, but the majority will pay for a DC. The question is "how much?"

Still does not address the issue of whether they'll make one or not.

I think there are two titles out there with fully dynamic campaigns and neither one does it without a fair share of bugs. F4 & Enemy Engaged both tried it and they are functional, but not the pinnacle of gaming technology they've been billed as for so long.

My favorite sim ever was Jane's F-15 and its campaigns were of the Choose Your Own Adventure Books variety. Strike Fighters 2 has a sorta/kinda dynamic campaign, but not really. I think the Mission Editor in DCS almost chases people away from making content with its level of complexity and the Mission Generator has literally spawned enemy aircraft directly over my head as I was on the threshold for takeoff. It doesn't work very well. Even SF2 lets me start a mission in the Sea Flanker on an actual carrier without having to fuss with much.

But, the ardent fans rejoice in its difficulty. They are happy when you're driven off by how hard it is because it validates their own skillset. As long as that's true, DCS doesn't really have a lot of incentive to do anything differently. And that's fine with me.

Well Falcon 4.0 is a 18 year old Simulation and still remains the benchmark. I believe it is still around today because of its campaign engine. It has had its share of bugs but not due to the campaign engine. If it only had a slew of predetermined missions I'm sure many would have lost interest. DCS has potential and I support them but it appears that they are going the MS Flight simulator route with a bunch of flyable planes built by various developers with intensively clickable cockpits but minimal combat depth for the Combat enthusiasts. Their focus should be on Combat Simulations not solely on flyable planes and clickable cockpits. The latter part will always be there. Honestly, it feels strange at best flying around Georgia in a P-51 wouldn't you say?

If they are not going to do it I wonder if they would allow a third part developer to build the DC generator.

Seriously though, after putting all this time to learn the A-10C, I just feel a bit of a let down in that there is not much much more in there. Perhaps I haven't found the option for it yet but scrambling where targets are encountered both in the air and on the ground would be nice. Right now, I find my self bouncing back to F4 more than expected because of this.

Like so many others (me included) you've just learned DCS is more of a "airframe sim" than an aircombat sim.
After learning the ropes of a given airframe you end up rather empty and with all the questions what to do now.
Personally I learnt A-10C, P-51D and last few weeks a semi-done M-2000C (but most fun flying I've had in DCS).

Each module gone in to pause for something more alive.

Yesterday I flew 2 sorties into North Korea in my F-16C-52 with a buddy, you guess the sim (and the far lower gfx quality is dropping off ones mind in less than 10 minutes due to everything going on).

But it would only be 'win-win' for us, the customers. Why do people buy everythinng early-access knowing that the pprofuct will never be finished?....I think its because ED have so little content and people get bored with the dull environment and are happy to purchase anything off the production line because its new and shiny and they've waited so long - I've certainly done that myself before (but won't be doing it again).

A campaign generator or DC will mean that when people who have their favourite platform won't be buying any more content because a DC will immerse them in an ever-changing environment. ED are greedy and have obviously realised the canned campaigns are quick money spinners for little effort hence why its become their focus at the detriment of everything else that needs finishing.

It's not only a matter of generating a mission txt file. Remember that DCS has a totally absurd way of handling events in the 3d world.
With my ex-squadron we did a whole month of testing for a quasi-dynamic campaign one of us was developing. The brick wall was at around 100 units. The game would just crash consistently after that (and well before for the most part).
100 units means aircraft+ground+troops+ships+missiles in flight etc.
In practice, that meant that we had a medium intensity battle taking place in an area of a few square Km around a city, nothing more.
How can you simulate a country-wide or even just regional conflict if the core DCS engine can't handle a few units?
You can have the best dynamic mission generator in the world, but it's not gonna help.

Another huge point is the DCS AI: TOTALLY D.U.M.B. and useless.
And the other thing, of course, is that you would need a working ATC if you want to have the AI aircraft take off and land without getting stuck.


DCS is basically Flanker 1.0 with a facelift. The A-A radar code has apparently not changed by one comma since Flanker 1. That gives you an idea of how old and underdeveloped DCS actually is.

I hope to be proven wrong, but DCS will never ever have a DC.

I think if they hadn't included it people would have noticed and you'd be making the argument, "ED didn't even include a DC on the poll, they have no intention of making a DC!"

The thing that bugged me about that poll were the options. Every single option except for a dynamic campaign can be associated with something that had already been announced, teased, or otherwise assumed to be an eventuality. And the DC was really the only thing that is massively different from active developments and would effectively be started from scratch.

-4th gen multi-role fighter; F-18C already announced, other 3rd party 4th aircraft are announced
-dynamic campaign; nothing really stated
-New Combat Theaters; Nevada, Strait of Hormuz, and Normandy in announced and in active development. 3rd parties also have terrains in development
-Improved Multiplayer/Dedicated servers; has been stated its in development
-ATC improvements; stated already in development
-Improved effects; some already released, other effects already in development
-More mission content; campaign DLC had already been released and obviously more has followed
-Helicopters; Gazelle and Bo-105 already announced, BST teased/expected to release others
-Older aircraft WW2 to Vietnam; DCS WW2

As far as I'm concerned I'm more shocked that it didn't get more votes than it did because we are already going to get everything else eventually. Its like choosing what to watch between a bunch of movies you've already seen and 1 that you haven't yet and really really want to. Everything but the DC one could hope for within a year or 2. But the DC would be Star Citizen levels of development time, much like when EDGE was initially announced vs released.




While there might be some active selection in terms of "would it be good for a DC", I'd think there are plenty of aircraft yet to be released in DCS that would fit in nicely with a DC or normal missions. Besides I think that already goes on to some extent anyway. There are only so many startup procedures and general aircraft usage that you can keep up with at a given time.

I have to agree that its pretty obvious that everyone at ED is making campaigns now instead of writing code or making art assets. I'm frankly shocked the credits in the game hasn't moved every programmer and artist into the "Mission and Campaigns" section. /s

I hate to pull the "different devs do different stuff" argument, but there is a bit of a difference between creating a module and a mission from scratch. One has tools built into the game that literally everyone has access to, can create, distribute, and depending on the complexity finish what they wanted to accomplish in a day. The other... well it clearly takes a while. We have ~17 (counted FC3 aircraft as 1) aircraft modules released. On the ED User Files page there are 866 missions and campaigns available to download. Granted that doesn't take the version of the game the mission was made in into account, but it also isn't the one and only place for missions to be published to. I think its probably 2 to 3 people at ED making campaigns tops, and one of them is Wags.

I can't believe that the last mission I made for this flight (LOFC 1.1) sim was 9 years ago !

http://www.lockonfiles.com/files/file/940-crimean-aw-mod-3-russian-ops-v101/

I can.




The Jedi Master

you have good imagination

so, instead of mission making - I am enjoying much more making ...

Indeed you have a point here, I admit.

Even with all the bugs, I keep returning to play the exact same campaigns (on both F4/BMS and EECH sims) while with the DCS campaigns (such as the A-10C or even the Huey one and others) I probably won't play them ever again and why is that so?
Because after playing a DCS campaign I always know exactly what will happen while after having played them for the first time while with the dynamic campaigns of F4/BMS or EECH I don't (and for every time I play one of these DC campaigns).

Bottom line:
- It's better to have a dynamic campaign with bugs than a non-dynamic or scripted/static campaign without bugs. (at least IMO)

I can't speak for EEAH/EECH but with Falcon's DC, how often do you think they get played? Compare that to any DCS campaign... how often do you think a player goes through the campaign? In other words, what do you think is the longevity and replayability of a DC vs. DCS's scripted campaigns, even taking into consideration the bugs?



Are you talking about the DC? Or the full-switchology that is in Falcon BMS and DCS A10C?



Really? Ouch!!



If they didn't include it, yeah, we'd be #%&*$# that "ED didn't even include DC in the poll" but at the same time, that would communicate VERY CLEARLY that ED has no intention of making a DC in the first place. Why ask "what do you want us to do next?" and then ignore the answer that was chosen out of the answers THEY THEMSELVES put up as choices?

How often do the tactical engagements in F4 get played compared to the DC? Literally never heard anyone rave about the T-Es, its always the DC. Thats what you are comparing between. Though I think DCS missions have an upper hand on the F4 T-Es. Can't be for certain though since its been a while and the last I tried the F4 editor I woke up in a ditch the night afterward.

Campaign vs campaign its not exactly a contest due to one being fixed set of missions and the other being generated and length of it depends on a number of factors. Down to basics its just game content in terms of what people spend time doing. I'd venture to guess the majority of F4 players do something with the DC in SP or MP. In DCS they might do the campaign, but they might also seek out user made missions or venture online (more user made missions). And thats kind of the difference between the two. In F4 the longevity comes from the game providing the mission content, in DCS the users create the longevity. To be fair though the aircraft also play a part. F4 is learn the F-16 and derivatives while DCS is a choice between a bunch of different aircraft, most of which are unique in their own way.



As you can tell I wasn't a huge fan of that poll, let alone of the public availability of the results. The question of the poll though was "What do you want to see most", not "what do you want to see next". A bit of a difference there... and thats ignoring the fact that, to my knowledge, they never said they'd act on the results. Its not like the users were involved in some binding agreement, money exchanged (for an option), or anything more thoughtful than simply being a forum member and clicking twice to vote. Its almost the lowest common denominator of saying you want a DC. I still maintain my point on the time scales required to accomplish each of the items listed. Literally every other option could be released within a tolerable time frame. If every option was already in development, isn't it logical that if ED started making a DC that it'd likely be the last thing from that list to be released?

If they weren't going to act on the results of the poll what exactly was the point of it? I can understand a pointless poll made by a member, I say pointless because it's clear ED don't really care what the customers want. If a dev makes a poll canvassing the opinion and desire of their customers there will be a large percentage of those customers who think, rightly or wrongly, that the devs will be reacting to the results. Why make the poll otherwise? Like I said it's quite clear, from that poll alone, that ED really don't care what their customers want.

Wife: Hey honey! What do you want for dinner? Steak, eggplant omelette, or slices of bread?
Husband: Steak please!
Wife: How about you kids?
Eldest: A steak sounds good, Mom!
Middle Child: Oh yeah, a steak would be great!
Youngest: I'll probably struggle to finish a whole steak, but yeah, I'd like that as well!
Wife: Here's your slices of bread guys! I know, I know, you all wanted steak, but that would've meant I'd have to go to the store, buy the meat, come home, etc. etc. whereas the sliced bread was already in the cupboard.



Yeah, that's a smart way of running a business. If you didn't want to, couldn't, or didn't care to make a DC (steak), why offer it as an option? Just to be cruel?
"There's no binding agreement, no money exchanged, etc." are weak excuses really.



The TEs in Falcon get a lot of use!! They are the training scenarios people use... either for A-A engagements, HARM or Maverick practice, ILS/instrument approaches, rampstart, A-A refuelling, etc. They get played quite a lot, both by old players and especially new players! Personally, I would use to always fire up the A-A refuelling TE as I found it a good way to loosen up and relax after a stressful day at work!

You've not heard anyone rave about the TEs? Go to the BMS forum and ask people what they think of the new 4.33 TEs vs. the older 4.32 TEs. I'll let the BMS community speak for itself.

As for DCS missions/campaigns having the upper hand, I'll have to ask you to clarify why you say that. In BMS, I could start my own campaign, play it solo for a few missions, find out my buddies have free time on a Saturday night, play the campaign in MP a couple of missions, then go back to playing solo. In a BMS campaign, your aircraft is tracked and if you lose too many, your squadron could suffer later in the war. Personally, I try to make sure I bring the aircraft back as it is a resource, just like the pilot, so sometimes I abort the mission so that I can RTB an injured bird. Same goes for MP flights, especially if we/I plan to fly the campaign more afterwards.


One is a campaign, one is a set of scripted missions "tied" together to resemble a campaign.
In the campaign, your actions and achievements (or failure!!) in each mission affects all others down the line. There is continuity and you see the effect of your flight on the general progress of the war.
In scripted missions, well, there's nothing really. Just a win/lose message at the end of the game. So you went out with a flight of 4 Warthogs and only 1 came back? Meh, it won't affect whatever mission you run next. Just like TEs in BMS.

The longevity is there in F4 because of the DC. The longevity is there because you just start it up **AND IT'S THERE**. No need to look for missions online. No need to "test" downloaded missions to see if they're good or not. You could be the last person on earth flying Falcon and the content **IS STILL THERE**. Again, change PAK priorities, fly from different airbases, concentrate on A-A instead of A-G, and you'll experience a totally different campaign.

As for the aircraft part, well, someone said it better --- "DCS is an airframe simulator."
Personally, it takes some time to be able to fly an aircraft properly, to work and fly it like it's an extension of yourself. Then being able to fly and fight in it as part of a cohesive group (two-ship) takes another chunk of time. After that, being able to fly and fight in it as part of a cohesive group (two-ship) and being THE GUY that leads the group takes yet another chunk of time. Upgrading again to four-ship flight lead.... get the idea? If you want to feel like a pilot in a war, you'll know what sim I'm talking about. If you just want to take different rides up for a spin.... jack of all trades, master of none.

A DC will be fun thats for sure, but how can we ask a DC with all the work it would need, when the guys at ED never fixed two huge bugs in the sim? bugs that are there since the release day. Two bugs closely linked together. And I'm talking here about the lack of frag damage and the snipper ground vehicles gunners.

The lack of frag damage makes the rockets used in the russian planes and choppers almost useless, and the russians doctrine makes huge use of those rockets, so when I fly with the Su25 or the Ka50 having to hit directly a truck to kill it it ruins all the fun and realism. So yes, that engine needele is important, but we're lacking other serious things here. Bombs are affected the same way.

The second part are the ROBOCOP sniper habilities of the ground vehicles gunners, they can hit you no matter what, with even a BTR machine gun, the big gun on the BMP-2 is a particular killer, which army needs SA-10 or PATRIOT SAMS when you can get a couple of BMP-2 that can kill you at 2.5km with consisten accuracity?

Reaaly really stupid.

Fixed that for ya