That is not a bad analysis but I would note a couple of things - apples and oranges.
a 3D modeler is not a coder;
a FM research and implementation is a math and systems heavy coding task;
a Dynamic Campaign system requires AI coding knowledge - and is not a trivial task;
I am a systems and data processing coder - well I was a few years ago before I moved on to build systems and automated testing. What I am not is a 3D engine coder. There is a guy at my company with the job of creating a new 3D engine for our data visualization software. I could do it, but it would take me years, moving my knowledge base from what I currently know. Put either of us into AI coding … it will be quite a while before we are effective at doing the job.
You should see what we get when our company tasks science coders with creating a user interface! Where is the face palm emojii? That will do.
Don’t get we wrong, I am over stating and over emphasizing my point. You are not wrong and these are still resources (ie: money flowing out of an organizations pockets into other pockets) and relocating them is entirely possible and likely given the development priorities of a gaming company.
I believe that a dynamic campaign - or a system that provides dynamic-campaign features or the illusion of a dynamic campaign - is possible and financially beneficial for ED. I would argue for a slightly higher price point depending on the features and capabilities of the system.
I would also argue that it timing is critical. I believe that we are getting to a point where the number of aircraft in DCS World engine is now high enough for ED to consider fleshing out the mission system. They are achieving momentum with aircraft releases by third parties that now makes it an ideal time to address the gameplay aspects of the engine itself: campaign, missions, environment, air traffic control, etc.
One thing I would like to add to the larger discussion is platform type. Each platform type we have in game as different dynamic campaign pattern. Helicopters are not going to enjoy CAP flights or deep strike missions and a dynamic campaign system. That makes implementation more complicated.
When we define dynamic campaign, which varies from person to person, we also need to define the platforms that we would be fighting that campaign with. Multi-role aircraft make it easier but I would argue that ED needs to address this issue broadly in order to tie in as many third party aircraft systems as possible - increasing sales for everyone.
The multi platforms is interesting Fridge. We haven’t really seen anything else that incorporates playable helicopers or even ground vehicles into a bigger combined arms campaign. For those I would imagine that more ground assets would need to be created? I still maintain that a full campaign implementation would take as, @Force10 estimates, around three years. Encompassing all current and near future platforms just further complicates things.
maybe not everyone noticed it in the recent newsletter with all the news about new planes like the hornet, spitifre, saab viggen and other things. But one line stated that work is being done on a air combat generator that accepts user inputs for generating missions. Highly speculative ofcourse, but this seems like a solid first step towards a real dynamic campaign!
I read this instead as adding a capability to their already very capable Mission Generator feature – just for air-to-air battles, probably for the WWII crowd.
This is an interesting progress update by Mbot: HERE
Aviation units (squadrons/regiments) are now completely present with almost all of their aircraft in each mission. This means that also aircraft which are unassigned for the current mission sit idle and empty on their units airbase (I probably still have to do some sort of reduction factor for very large units).
At the same time, the ATO is able to plan strike missions against aircraft on airbases (Offensive Counter Air).
MiG-29 regiment at its airbase. Some of these aircraft might still go on a sortie later in the mission and some might be assigned to ground alert intercept duty, ready to launch when enemy aircraft are detected by EWR/AWACS. But here most are empty, perhaps doing maintenance or rest, waiting for a sortie at a mission later in the campaign.
A flight of Strike Eagles is about to do something about that “later” part.
2 MiGs were destroyed on the ground and 5 more damaged. The damaged ones might get repaired later in the campaign, but for now there are 7 MiGs less to worry about in the next missions."
I love flight sims with good campaigns, in fact I don’t play anything else. Whether these older sims like EF2000 and F22 TAW actually had truly dynamic campaigns is debatable. But the fact is that the campaign needs to SEEM like it is dynamic or unfolding. That’s what makes it interesting to me. I dont NEED full dynamicism like Falcon 4 but I do need to feel the war is progressing and changing direction dependant on how the various units are fighting, and that this can vary from one game to the next.
I have had some memorable moments from good campaigns. Surprises are the key to me enjoying a flight sim. I want to see an enemy flight going past me and coming back to a ruined base airfield and then for me to be able to strike their airfield in return. I want to see less planes in areas where you have air superiority and ground units losing where they have no C&C facilities intact.
These sorts of things can be scripted pretty easily and will transform any mediocre flight sim into a wonderful experience. I have loved all my flight sims, but I have particularly love the ones where I feel like I can make some choices and have an impact.
But flights sims that revolve around individual canned mission have no interest for me. At the moment I am play Strike Fighters 2 and loving that sim. I’ve never considered DCS or the IL games - they have no interest for me at all. IF they got a decent campaign things would be different. I think devs underestimate the power of a good campaign can have in attractive sim gamers to their product. I dont want super fidelity models above all else. In fact I would rather have slightly more simplified models if it enables more planes in the air, a good campaign with various squadrons and mission choice, and an ongoing ground war.
These days all we seem to have are super high fidelity sims with canned missions or online arcade flying games. Things used to be much better in the 90s. The flight sim market today is a shadow of what it was then in terms of creativity and imagination.
I know this is beating a dead horse, but I would pay full module price (or more) for a fully supported Dynamic Campaign engine for DCS. I love the campaigns that MBot has created and would love to see them receive financial and personnel assistance from ED.
My own teeth gnashing over the lack of a DC despite the obvious advantages is placated somwhat by dynamic multiplayer servers like Tactical (or is “Total”) Air War (TAW anyway) in IL2:New and Blue Flag in DCS. TAW, particularly, has a nifty set of rules for attrition and resuply that carry over at rotation along with a redrawn front.
One thing that we should consider is that for the last few years the engine update has been the biggest push for ed. Without havering a stable build to work off of I would assume that programming a dynamic campaign would be a useless effort.
I think a dynamic campaign is a good idea. Wags himself flat out said it’s less a matter of if than when in a Q&A this summer.
I also think anyone expecting the Falcon Dynamic Campaign to one day magically appear in DCS also need to check their expectations. Falcon 4 is less a flight sim with a dynamic campaign, and more a grand strategy game with a flight sim wrapped around it. Lest we forget that most everything about the map and engine in Falcon is built with that campaign in mind, the same campaign that was grossly behind schedule, over budget, and directly lead to the death of Falcon as a commercial product. After nearly two decades of tweaking, it’s undoubtedly remarkable, but is it sustainable?
I’d eventually like to see a more formalized and integrated version of Mbots remarkable campaign system, or even something akin to how SF2 handles the matter.
Agree with all you’ve written. And personally (I know, I’ve written this a million times)…I’m fine with a dynamic campaign that puts me as a big fish in a small pond (EECH) rather than a small fish in a big pond (Falcon 4). In the end, it is entertainment software…
i wish they had it implemented … dynamic campaign or a server that runs co-op and pvp could be really awsome. i think its something that can happen with dcs but not now … they are way over there head with 2.5 black sea map strait of hurmoz and the F-18 … and who knows what else goes behind the scenes …
That will do.
