Kinda wondering here

Just posted this at ED's. Seems it got deleted 2 times in a row - posted it the 2nd time because I thought there was a glitch and the original just vanished. Now is there something wrong with the message itself, or are there really topics someone _doesn't_ want discussed over there?

"Salud all at ED's.

Been flying this unnamed early 1900s sim a bit for a change, and while DCS is leaps and bounds ahead in the techie/physics department, this sim we don't name still wipes the floor with it as regards content. The career mode is just brilliant; you literally never know what the enemy is going to throw at ya - and the AI, both ground and air, is plausible enough to make it all feel real, at least from a ground pounder's POV. So how about adding some of that good stuff to DCS as well, because our fine machines combined with something akin to this would make this sim of ours the best of all time?

Now I know YOU know this (would be very surprised if you didn't, actually). But just thought I'd mention it still ;)"

So you be the judge... anything wrong with this request? Was posted in the DCS wishlist subforum too. I'm kinda baffled here, truth be telt...

EDIT: The bolded part should actually be "this recent sim simulating early 1900s air war". Bad wording from my part, sorry...

What's "wrong" with it, is that people have been asking for dynamic campaigns for years.

It's just something ED hasn't deemed important enough to put time into. They have much higher priorities for their limited funds and development resources, like, say, a new website.

this has been ignored by the developer for years now



the developer is waiting for it all in DCS to come together at an unspecified date, at which point we all will be in awe at the wonder of it all - meanwhile we have a new website (looks the same to me ).

They can not release for many years, what promised.And someone asks about things which you need a few extra years.

Some live in the matrix

Yes, the web designers are the same people that will program the dynamic campaign. Clearly. I mean, anyone with any basic knowledge of html can program a game, right?

They have been.



That part is certainly incorrect.



That one's correct.



And this one's just assinine.

Here we go again

Well…the funds are the same…that's how I read his statement. Money is money…I think the point was they could have used the funds to pay someone to work on a campaign instead.

I'll give you a reason for deleted posts,
ED boards is for ED, comparisons with other sims are always going to he deleted, whether its with BMS, FSX, ArmA or Outtera.

2nd one was deleted for reposting.

If you want to make comparisons, A forum not belonging to the developer is the place to do it.

Thanks Zilla, now I know where we stand as regards this. Salud.

To the OP, there is a 100 page thread (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=64161&page=100&highlight=Dynamic+campaign+discussion) on the subject, not sure if you had a chance to check it out. A lot of people want the same thing.


I vaguely remember Wags mentioning that the dynamic campaign is a direction they hope to go in someday (hope I'm not talking out of my A** here, couldn't find a link). Why ED has decided it is not a priority is beyond me. In thier defense a dynamic campaign has been done before...hi fidelity carrier ops, on the other hand will be revolutionary! Il try to get carried away

Maybe because the competition doesn't offer it? Well, there is no competition. They'd certainly have to deal with some AI related issues (e.g. BMPs sniping planes, attack helos shooting down supersonic fighters, smaller SAM systems deploying in a second, huge FPS loss from various AI artillery, etc.) so I'd look forward to more than the dynamic campaign if they ever get around to it.

Basically, more important things to work on at the moment than a new campaign engine, as srim put it.

maybe I am missing something - the forum looks the same to me, is there something new that I am missing ?

www.digitalcombatsimulator.com

I actually saw it earlier, looks pretty nice to me.

Actually, I rather meant that both AI issues and a dynamic campaign in my mind are sorely missed in DCS. I'm flying "that other sim" with a bunch of people who normally don't go anywhere near sims, but who actually regard the MP dynamic campaign experience as enough to make an exception. Literally speaking none of them would go anywhere near a DCS campaign right now, even with less advanced jets (heck, even the A-10C is less advanced. Some more AG systems, but overall I really think it's harder to learn flying the F-16 in BMS well than the A-10 in DCS due to the hugely varied and more fluid roles). At best I can get one, maybe two of them to agree to a single DCS mission right now.

The fact that the outright awful graphics in BMS still doesn't cause it to loose out to DCS just tells me that a dynamic campaign would be the best thing alongside a full fidelity multirole fighter right now.

Dream on. I doubt we'll ever see a dynamic campaign from ED. They really don't seem to have the chops for it; nor do they seem to care. Also ED doesn't seem to be the most efficiently run operation out there - typically going in six directions at once. I've been waiting for the F-18 for a good five years now.

Should also be noted they do seem to have private, non-consumer clients that they take care of first (which is ED's prerogative). Unfortunately they're the only show in town for modern hi-fi jet combat. Shame it turns out this way, but just about no one else is making these sims nowadays.

Ah well, at least we have The Hog (thanks to the ANG).

I'll bet they're paid from the same bank account...

They either hired web designers or a contractor to build a new website, as opposed to getting a few more devs to move other projects along.

I think it's wrong to be mean to a new someone with an old idea. Yes, "we've seen it a million times" but that's not the fault of the new guy. It's stupid to throw a fit over a tired idea like a kindergarten teacher after 30 years on the job yelling because these 5 year-olds never know the alphabet!



If you go on the KSP forums and compare it to Orbiter it won't be deleted. If you go on DoTA forums and compare it to LoL it won't be deleted. If you go on CoD forums and compare it to Battlefield it won't be deleted. If you go on Star Citizen forums and compare it to Elite Dangerous...

It's just ED to which this "rule" applies.

But they could charge extra for a dynamic campaign add-on just like they do for planes so they should just commit to it and get it done.

I'd rather not give them any ideas.

I don't mind aircraft, scripted campaigns (which may require unique voice overs), but I don't want to have to pay for everything. Addon clouds, addon MP modes, addon AI units, ect.

ED has definitely dabbled in the beginnings of procedurally generated content. They were quite proud of their "fast mission builder" and the warehouse system suggests some leanings toward a persistent environment. The ability to save-state a mission and resume it later will also be necessary for any long-term scenario.

DC is hard, even Microprose employees on post-product interviews said they wouldn't try it again. I do think that accessible quality mission content and AI are the main limiters on enjoyment beyond the learn 2 plane stage. Most of the play I observe is anti-trail sandbox type multiplayer. It's not a very satisfying kind of play.

There is a 3rd party Persistent Dynamic campaign available for DCS, for those interested.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=136618



Nate

a textbook definition of a Consumer Support Forum with a tightly enforced "positive" and "on-topic" bias.

Rules are Rules,
If you want to post comparisons across multiple products not belonging to the developer then a 3rd party community forum that does not belong to developers is the place to do it.

I had an exchange a while ago with one of those responsible for that forum, that objected to this definition : "Consumer Support Forum".

that is what I have been trying to explain to some in our community : that that forum should not be taken seriously ( threads deleted, editing member's posts , banning of members , general attitude ) as it is not a community forum for the free exchange of opinions (good or bad) but a consumer support service staffed by the developer and its contributors.

that also explains the cultural differences (and cultural shock) undergone by some of those that contribute to that forum when getting in contact with the general public in a forum not controlled by them, like ours and this one.

But it is a forum and the company representatives should take a role in promoting a good place to go to, rather than a place where you get harassed, talked down by what amounts to disrespect. So agreed Tom but overall I loathe even think about going to the ED forums due to the majority of the tester staff and etc. acting as they do and so on. There's no reason to go there, and quite frankly I don't miss the company forums one bit and so far have survived without it by not always interacting with any ED representatives if I know I can find better help here, on the LOF forums, or CA.

If you want somebody to feel happy about your brand, then you take the time to treat your customers with a modicum, which are coming to your forum for help. Give people constant attitude and so on, then why bother and go to a community that actually treats you with respect?

Go ahead GrayGhost, try and report me to a moderator and try and distract me from (as you always try and do) and offer a poor opinion which means nothing. Or should I say Weta43.

Anyway...

in my opinion - there has been an inversion of roles between us, we ceased to be consumers and they ceased to be the ones trying to sell their goods.




in a sense, we became those that should be grateful for having the goods and not consumers that should be courted and made to buy.

this empowerment by the part of the developer has had a negative impact in our community and has been quite disruptive to the general harmony of it.

Well I think the community as a whole has gotten tired of the wait. I mean I come and go and there's no sense of advancement so you're right though man, fair points.

the wait period has gone on for too long - no use their not liking the effect it had on all of us , expectations now being so high the end product better be good or we'll see a serious backlash of negativity.

Well even back in 2000 man when I was moderating the UBi boards we had to really balance expectations vs. reality and so on that one I can't say that they're intentionally screwing us. They're not and that's something that back then and even now as they say, and I even try and rienforce is that it's a vastly complex machine (even LOMAC was) so yeah it grinds my gears, but I understand so I just deal with it.

what people have come to expect now in terms of quality is almost unbelievable.

but ...

if the message is consistent and the track record is good, problems tend to be much less serious.

that is why I guess some developers like people to leave the community rather than stay long enough to remember the past.

how many people remember when news were posted here at SimHQ by the developer that Lock On Modern Air Combat was going to be delayed by a year, we all cheered that as a sure sign that the end product was going to be better.

try that today ...

Agreed man, it's just hell for any game company to meet player's expectations. Which is why I play Arma 3 and don't whine and moan given the open archtecture... They're not making something you want? Make it yourself. Given that DCS (Flanker 1.0 to now too) is getting more open its going to calm things down a lot given that people are taking the time to make new content and don't have to always depend on ED to provide what they want. I mean I create my own content in Arma 3 as I have skills. ED not making a texture that I like? I'll grab the templates and do it myself. And that's just a gamer/modder perpsective. They work hard at ED that's for sure, but yeah agreed, the gamer culture has gotten a bit more virulent and rabid.

Bohemia Interactive is something special - I've been playing every version since Arma 1 came out, those guys never let success get in their way

there are many developers like that in P3D/FSX - A2A, OpusFSI, and Aerosoft to name a few

people are not going to respect or like you more because you shout louder or kick people's nuts harder ...

Well BIS manages things better than ED does, which is the view I have as well.

Agreed, which is why I kick back when needed, not because I go out of my way too either, to clarify some people's minds for the future. Leave me alone and don't screw with me, and I'll mind my business...

Anyway yeah, I think if ED did more explaining and better managing of people things would be a bit easier. As said on the BI forums you gotta know how to manage people's expectations and requests, and be assertive. Don't and you'll have the sharks at your feet before you even hit the pool...

No it won't make them stop but they'll understand that's for sure

everyone has to do their own thing, originality and innovation is lost if everyone simply copies off each other.

A massive overreaction and biased look I'd say. I frequently read and post over there, because whenever I need some help or info about any of modules I own, or hardware issues, I know I'll get more answers from fellow pilots over there and get them faster than anywhere else. And If someone needs similar advice, I'm all for posting it there - why shouldn't I? I'm not on any boycotting crusade. Whenever some new player asks "noob" questions about tech. aspects of modules, he also gets treated properly, based on my observations.

As long as there's no dead horse bashing (related to "Neverending Story" of EDGE, or abysmal product support by Belsimtek), SiTh or other trigger-happy mods and testers don't bother and I feel their forum isn't really that different from this one, or any other for that matter.

Of course, when more free and critical opinions on DCSW development interest me, I come here (registered recently after being long time lurker), but even that gets old after a while. Same old "CheGuevaras" & their complaints, justified I admit, but what are they going to change? ED, just like 777 and 1C has:
1) a long-time monopoly in their category of sim product;
2) traditional, Russian developer's attitude - "I do things my way and If customer doesn't like it, that's his problem, he's going to come back on his knees anyway, because - see point 1)".

I agree it shouldn't be like that, but it's been since old Il-2 days and isn't going to change anytime soon... unless LM decides to evolve Prepar3D into a combat sim Not betting on it though!

Maybe I am overgeneralizing to a degree, but I've also been in the community since... say 1999, 2000? So maybe but overall it could be better.

But you are of course right but, I do see other people Lord over other players, "I play DCS therefore I'm a God" which... no I don't agree with and you're just not.

Agreed... which is why i don't do M4s anymore, or really not get too excited in the Arma community... man so many frakking M4s that you get the idea... "Let's make a weapons pack, and have M4s!" which is why i do other guns now rather than M4 this M4 that

i Miss M-8s...

I got one in my pack but may do the rest, not sure yet though.

Is that ED's stand on the concept of a product that is enjoyable in the long term?

Sure, it's true in some areas, but to apply it to every aspect that is awkward to deal with doesn't really make for an enjoyable experience. I have no problem believing that the dynamic campaign in BMS was extremely complicated to develop. But neither do I have any problems believing that the incredible technological advances since BMS's DC was created over 20 years ago would have vastly reduced those challenges today.

nope, that is my opinion, and not of ED.

there is :

http://www.lockonfiles.com/topic/40494-tacpack-and-superbug-for-p3d-released/

I hardly know anyone that is not into P3D or FSX as well - I am sure many underestimated the pull of FSX-P3D and I have been into it for 8 years now and thanks to LM will be there for the foreseeable future.

There is a belief that the developer of DCSW has a monopoly, not true, flight sim is dominated by FSX-P3D and all the rest try to carve out a space to exist.

Agreed, and I wondered last night why VRS doesn't convert their Super Bug for DCS, but that's a decision beyond me.

FSX-P3D may be the overwhelming giant of the civil flight sim market, but owns almost none of the combat flight sim market.

TacPack? Not nearly enough functionality or plane set to really make it a viable threat to any air combat sim of any generation. I have been eagerly following TacPack for some time. It still hasn't reached a level where I am willing to try it.

I can just as easily state that I only know a handful of people that are in to FSX/P3D at all. I also know even fewer people into FSX/P3D as much as I have been in to combat flight sims in terms of hardware, home cockpit, etc. So, I can just as easily counter your statement - I am sure many overestimate the pull of FSX-P3D, and I have been into combat flight sims since Digital Integration's Fighter Pilot and Tomahawk for the Timex Sinclair 2068 (ZX Spectrum) back in the mid 80's.

As a dedicated combat flight simmer, DCS very much is a monopoly of both the "modern" air combat study sims and survey sims. With the exception of World War 2, it is also the only active company with air combat study and/or survey sims in other time frames. Name even one other comparable helicopter combat sim. The one hole remaining is WWI era biplanes. Unfortunately, demand for that era is very low and three sims are already catering to that market, so I don't DCS entering that era any time soon.

FSX/P3D and TacPack would have to give me an F-4 Phantom and MiG-21 equal to DCS MiG-21 with a combat environment comparable or superior to DCS and SF2 to really get my attention. I bet Edge and DCS Nevada will be released before TacPack ever reaches a level that gets my time and money.

the market is much smaller and the effort involved much bigger - besides making them lose their independence and work under the rules of another developer, and then there is the disastrous precedent of the L-39 snafu.



take me as an example - I was a dedicated combat flight simmer since the days of Spectrum Holobyte F-16 and now I am a dedicated FSX-P3D fan, it is not that FSX-P3D have so little of the combat flight sim market, it is how many of us are jumping ship from combat flight sims to civilian flight sims , everybody I know is in P3D or FSX as their premier flight sim - believe me, once you start you never tire of it thanks to the multitude of developers engaged in it.

Good point.

that L-39 thing was an eye opener to many developers ...

Yeah I never really got too interested in it to be honest with you, the Strike Fighters 2 version was pretty cool, but the A3 version is pretty fun to fly on occasion.

However, I think the one in Arma is only fun because of the world it's in. In other words, take the ones in A3 and put them in DCS and I'd be bored silly in minutes. The focus is on the infantry, and in the planes you support them one way or another. Same thing with the Battlefield games.
DCS is about the planes, and every thing there supports that, even CA. Therefore you need more from the planes when they're the focus.


The Jedi Master

Strike Fighters has a bigger combat following than FSX/P3D

True given that they only abstractly (though oukej says they're trying to give it more fidelity) bit it's also not as fun as DCS given the small amount of real terrain you have. Sure there's that huge TKOH map but your average map in A3 or from OFP-A3 isn't very big. So while yeah it's fun to fly, it's also annoying to fly in circles all of the time to get any sense of excitement of flying. Where DCS/SF2 you can fly for an hour in a straight line (or whatever) and spend some quality time flying, as opposed to OFP-A3.

Sorry for the lateness, but I didn't think I'd have to explain that programming a dynamic campaign and building a webpage are nowhere near in cost.

Wasn't there a post/blog about how the dynamic campaign almost made microprose go broke?

If I remember correctly…the biggest issue/hurdle was getting the dynamic campaign to work on the minimum specs that were to be listed on the box. Not as much of an issue today I would think.

Many single individuals have created dynamic/like campaigns for sims. (i.e....Pat Wilson ROF…Enlightened Florist COD…etc.)

It doesn't neccesarily have to involve a massive team…just a passionate individual that knows the mission editor well…and how to tie it in with the engine.

IMO

Indeed, MBots Dynamic Campaign for DCS is a prime example of what can be done with dedication.

Nate

VRS developing for DCS would be hindering sales of their own TacPak product.

being a 3rd party developer is not the same as being an FSX-P3D developer, in FSX-P3D world , you work according to your own schedule and you are your own boss.

the developer of DCS outsources work and calls it "3rd party developer" - this means that that the 3rd party developer gets a percentage of the sales in return of developing at his own risk and cost a product for the developer of DCS.

developers like VRS profit much more from doing independent work and I don´t believe that most of the FSX-P3D developers see much profit in DCS.

Well either way whenever it comes out on Steam I'd get it.

That may or may not be true, but that isn't why they did it. They already said on their website that the highly restrictive license with ED was that reason and also the fact that ED wanted them to sign a highly restrictive NDA before even being able to look at what they would be getting in term of tools and support.

Well, colour me surprised...

You have a link to where they said that?

That being said, the exporter tools and notes to.develop a base line module are public,

They can build up a super hornet module with PSM and SFM without signing an NDA or License agreement with ED and Sell it on their site independantly, they just wont be able to use any DCS/ED logos are names.

So VRS Super Bug for DSCWORLD can exist without any contracts etc signed by ED.

the only thing a signed contract and NDA will do is offer them a level of support, and access to non public items/builds.

*I say SFM because Im not sure if the entire AFM API is included in DCS.

That being said, there are developers working on full blown DCS Modules without a license agreement etc.

I was working on the F-100 for 2 Years without access to anything but what is posted in the how to section on ED Boards. Work on that halted due to shifting priorities in my personal life eating up any free time to.code a project with any kind of authority or progress, I help others when I can, but thats about it.

My time is better used testing dcs and helping it evolve.

There are people that seem to think a contract is required to do anything when thats simply not the case.

The how tos for the LUAs are posted, along with the max tools and exporters, milviz released a animation plugin to convert animations to Arg Format, which works for both FSX/P3D animations to DCS and SF/SF2 Animations to DCS fine.

Theres guides for gauges and other cockpit systems.

One with some time and practice could likely build modules of the same depth as FC3 SFM modules rather quickly. Especially if the 3D External.w/.damaged nodes and cockpit models are already done.

Just a matter of setting the SFM, damage and other apecs in the LUA, and coding the base systems, as well as any devices, guages or displays for the pit.

it is hard to find not only the time - but the right frame of mind to do some creative work.

as for "shifting priorities in my personal life eating up any free time" well ... last year was not exactly easy for both of us.

at least skin making is very relaxing and takes your mind away from worrying too much

Well hell, was seriously thinking of getting a team for a Super Hornet stuff, and yeah good to know I don't have to get all Legal Beagle with it...

And I agree Tom_Weiss, one of the reasons I like skinning, A3 sometimes makes me pull my hair out...

Other than testing, Ive been skinning the F-86.

it is a pity this all became so embroiled.



one of the reasons why I also enjoy more P3D lately - just fly and enjoy the scenery

All of that is true, no doubt. And yet AFAIK, no one has done it. Have you ever wondered why. I have and the answer is simple, there simply is no developer community in this game or if there is , it is very well hidden.

Agreed, one reason I re-installed FSX, just hop in and go for a spin, etc.

I´ve been flying over Arizona, Nevada and Utah photoreal terrain these past few weeks, great fun.

hate
[heyt]
verb (used with object), hated, hating.
1.
to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest:

It would be nice to able to do the same in DCS

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=109055
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=93302

Other one:
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=133052