As the time passes more and more, it surprises me indeed that DCS DC has not been finished yet. My personal bet is that the lack of a mature AI logic for 3D in DCS must be killing their DC engine.
I definitely feel that's a factor. Another factor, I believe, is simply the codebase itself. For example, take the ME. IMHO, there's a reason we don't have a modern mission editor with QOL features like drag n drop, copy/paste, etc. Its because the level of effort to go in and code these basic elements far exceeds the time/effort/risk to do so. I can't imagine ED just ignores the constant pleas for these features. A DC will likely need some sort of ME component and I seriously hope they are creating a new one instead of hacking something into the existing, outdated and likely brittle one. Its been 4 years since we saw that initial announcement. Personally, I don't expect to see a DC for a least another 2. I think Wags said there were 4 resources working on the DC in one of his recent Q&A videos. That's not a large team. Given the technical hurdles they have to overcome (logistics, massive AI flaws, performance, vulkan [not in 2024], multithreading, Artificial Intelligence in development, aging brittle codebase ....), I thing we are a long ways off from seeing anything.
Throw a couple dozen live units in the map and the simulation thread will choke DCS to single digit FPS. Until this issue is resolved, Dynamic Campaign will be a distant dream. 6 years of "in development" so far and counting.
@@Steamthrower1 I have a pretty powerful PC and still see these issues in MP game play. The problem isn't the client but the very poor server tech of DCS.
i dont think you understand how complicated a modern DC engine would be, on modern hardware, with multithreading and 64 Bit memory addresses. Developer of the F4 DC Engine spent 4-5 Years developing it, and that was for a single threaded 32-bit environment.
They are actually doing quite well at optimizing the game as of late. I play only VR, Multithreading helped, and with the latest patch, with the same graphics settings as before, i no longer experience stutter near ground on Pretense.
@@loneirregular1280 But it simply isn't enough for dynamic campaign. They have to rewrite the whole system how units are calculated and drawn in order to make DC a reality.
A major issue has to be the current AI implementation. It seems to fluctuate between lethal ineptitude (Two, ejecting!) and Eye of Sauron omniscience. Neither is desirable for a dynamic campaign.
If they fixed AI it would make single player in user created missions much more viable without needing to use scripting or tricks to make it somewhat work.
The dynamic campaign could be sold as a module and DCS would make some money. Let’s not forget. The Falcon 4 dynamic campaign was created by an intern working alone. 4 or 5 programmers working on this full time should be able to deliver a nice dynamic campaign
@@JETFOURLITREI think it would be fair to make it a paid module IF it was used to support getting some of the underlying features in performance and AI up to scratch and released as part of the core. As that won’t happen though any time soon though it’s kind of irrelevant.
Yeah think of it like the Super Carrier. You can play the game without it but it is a lot more fun with it - if you use the carrier. I would rather pay for a dynamic campaign mod than for some of the other mods like the Chinook or the C-130.
The mission editor in early 90s DI's Tornado is light years ahead of what you have in DCS. Not only that, it was easy to use. The RAF wanted DI to make a 'real' version for themselves. It even put a radius on your waypoints, so so good. ED should find who did it, and pay them a good whack for putting it in DCS. The F4 'bubble' is how our own reality in the universe works I reckon. 😉👍🏿
DI Tornado campaign is also great IMHO. What I liked was that it was more visible what your mission did compared to FALCON's (excellent!) campaigns. knock out some SAMs and AAAs to create a gap in the air defence for the next round. Knock out enemy airfields to reduce # of interceptors. It was more simple and therefore less overwhelming than FALCON. The whole interface (planner and inside the aircraft) was a masterpiece of programming. What they did back then with so little computer power was amazing. Tornado is a sim which I still fly every now and then . The video resolution is extremely low, but after a while I manage to "unsee" it and enjoy it again. And I really like that the terrain is fictional.
Glad someone else here used to have DI Tornado, it was way ahead of it's time for 1993-94, loved it. I was on 14 sqn back then and we were running it on the Avionics bays $20,000 286 with a 14" CRT.
@@slowhornet4802 exactly this. If you're doing it right, you're heads down anyway, graphics don't matter as much. Never had the same buzz I got with Tornado, F/A-18 Interceptor a distant 2nd, then Falcon 4.0 👌🏿
@@theaviatorexperience4886 We had a rental 486 SX2 , was gutted when it when back. Had to get a PC geek at 6th form to make me a boot disk or else it wouldn't run. Happy days.
i could never believe 100% of what nick gray says. just like we needed core engine upgrades to finish the supercarrier. because i sure don't remember them saying any of which when i bought it 3/4 years ago. am i wrong?
I would be happy if there were more coalitions in ME. Blue, Red, Neutral, but maybe Green, Yellow and Orange too. Coalitions could be configured and trigged to be allies or enemies to each other. Your actions as player would effect who is in Your side and who are against You. Battlefield the overall situation would be much more intresting to determine coalition goals and in MP Your behavior would be part of something bigger than Yourself.
Multi threading has taken a lot longer to implement than anyone expected. I believe that a dynamic campaign requires more work on multi threading and Vulcan implementation. These sentiments have been echoed by wags, Nick and nine line over the years. If it was simple or cheap to implement, they would have done it already.
Thanks for your great videos. Very enjoyable style. I hoe to see updates on A-7 and .... the F-104 on your channel in the near future. Especially the Starfighter would be a nice addition to the Cold War servers. Maybe not too popular since it is a bit limited in payload, but it would be an aircraft which would be truly demanding to fly (if they get the flight model right).
Prickly, we understand the reasons why, but it has become harder and harder to believe what ED says. But ok, let's analyze this: 1) it must be a daunting task to create a modern dynamic campaign. There is no doubt about that many things must be worked on before committing to a fully functional dynamic campaign. 2) Covid and Ukraine war: no doubt that these two factors must have affected some devs lives and work. 3) DCS is the side gig. MCS is the main one. We are beta testers for ED to sell to the military contractors. However, the perception in the community is that ED already has a long laundry list of things to do but only focuses on new modules to develop. And more modules, mean less time to fix old modules and work on core game problems. And being DCS secondary to ED, only aggravates the problem. 4) ED overpromises and underdelivers: the marketing plan and communication to customers by ED is terrible. One year ago I wouid say that ED cedes under the community pressure, and promises things that can't do just to calm the nerves of the masses. But now I realized that ED follows the thing that plagues the digital marketing world, the Product Launch Formula. ED creates a lot of hype through new products announcements, then newsletters promising new game features, then social media campaigns and when the hype is high enough, they launch a new product. It is no coincidence that they are talking about adding dynamic campaign, new logistic system and core game improvements when they have three products very close to being released: the F-4, the Chinnok and Kola map. Once a new product is launched, they work on it and forget about the rest. And then from time to time they come up with a new promise to create hype again. Rinse and reoeat. 5) Confindence is in all time low: ED says this, ED states that, and the community is not buying that. Literally. People are voting with their wallets. Of course therevare those who fall prey to the Product Launch Formula thing. ED wants our trust and support? Show us real progress. Stop releasing half baked products and show the community real progress on core game issues and past modules fixes. 6) Will we ever see a dynamic campaign? I doubt it. Supercarrier full, Vulkan, WWII Marianas? Never. These will only be used to create hypevas stated in 4). I even doubt that ED will be around n five years time.
Modules is where the money is for ED...as long as the player base continues to put their hands in their pockets for them why would you change the current business model?
I liked the Dynamic campaign in Falcon 4.0... Its sad that Ed hasnt done this yet.. Been waiting 4 yrs now... Kind of like alot of things with ED - Still waiting... Kind of like the Dynamic Aircraft slot that was mentioned a while ago - Still waiting... Sad, soo very sad..
@@retiredat44 Not even that. F4 abstracted the dynamic campaign, as if it were a board game. Running a simulation all over the Korean peninsula would be computationally expensive. So Falcon 4 is a strategy game with a flight sim running on top.
10:07 What the hell is your wingman doing, Prickly? 😆 I had a Hornet wingman do that to me in the Aggressors BFM training campaign, only he flew directly into me and crashed us both at the very end of the hour-long mission. It took days for me to calm down and fly it again. 😄
Well, one reason might be that DCS server can't support a ground war beyond minor skirmishes, really. As it stands, with more than 20 ppl slotted in the ground war can't be more than 50 units moving about and shooting on the ground, lest the server will be on its knees and we see massive sync issues. So, not much point supporting a dynamic campaign until the server tech can actually handle managing a ground war.
They wouldn't be able to monetize it then but I agree. This is a huge undertaking and it is a lot easier to make it into a real thing if you outsource the bloody thing. There are a lot of crazy competent and talented people out there who would be more than happy to lend a hand for free.
I wish ED would stop trying to please everyone and just finish everything they have out right now. No more new stuff that way they can concentrate on finishing what they have out.
I thought that was a super interesting interview. I really liked how he described the campaign engine....he looked at the whole project as a grand strategy game and the player's actions were adding heavy modifiers ( positive or negative depending on the outcome of the mission ). I've played a few campaigns in DCS and I really enjoy them for the first time but that dynamic campaign is really something else. With all the random radio traffic going on and the fact that they're all real flights going about their business, the ATC handling traffic around the airport the whole battlespace feels like it really is alive and there is a war going on. It's pretty amazing even by today's standards. Would be amazing to see if someone made a proper dynamic campaign today with the AI tech available nowadays. Not talking about combat AI, but generating radio traffic between JTAC and CAS planes, around airfields, guard channel, etc...
DCS Liberation is a fan made version of a dynamic campaign and does pretty much everything you mentioned and its really good. Not sure why DCS can't do it
Yes, i somewhat agree. Liberation is great, but it has problems and bugs. I don't think it is a ready solution as often times you will have to do some tweaking. I think it's more directed toward MP as well. Lets not forget it smore gamey too, not like Falcon 4.
@@JD96893but the reason Liberation is buggy and gamey is because its fan based not from the company. This thing was announced 6 years ago, with “major” milestones announced 4 years ago. I know COVID was a thing but 6 years is a long time to wait for an entire game, let alone a feature of a game. But this can be applied to a lot of the features ED has talked about (ATC, weather, Vulcan, etc). Their focus on pumping out new products that they don’t finish is really what is hurting them.
@@lancedooley9304 yeah I know it's fan based, it's pretty good for what it is. I think ED is pushing short term revenue with new aircraft and maps. I think that most people don't realize that most modules don't provide a drastically different experience from each other. Or they think that they do when they really don't. You are basically doing the same thing with minor variations depending on the module. The Chinook for example will do the exact same things as the hip more or less.(assuming the new logistics system isn't implemented or is on both modules). The F5 and mig21 fill the same roles. The only major difference is performance and weapons. War Thunder has this exact same problem down to the letter. All the devs do is push out 'new' content in the form of vehicles and aircraft without really focusing on core game features. Eventually people get bored because the core game loop is basically the same if you're in a panzer 3 or an Abrams sep 3. In DCS the core game loop is shitty ground 'AI' which is really just a couple scripts, AI aircraft that have UFO performance, and repetitive static/sterile combat gameplay. I think Falcon 4 is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, because you only had(up until recently) the F-16, but a very dynamic gameplay loop which has kept people playing for over 2 decades and it has an active modding community with BMS.
Liberation and its fork Retribution are the closest thing to a DC we have for the moment. It's fan based and way better than what ED has achieved so far
I've been in this hobby since I was a teen in the mid 80's (C-64) and have played practically every flight sim available over the years. At this stage of life (I'm pushing 60 in a couple of years), I've given up hope for a DCS DC in my lifetime! 😂 However, since this is my primary means of entertainment (MSFS occasionally), a save-game feature would really add to my enjoyment, since my play time is limited and I do enjoy completing missions/campaigns and doing cold starts.
I don't even need a BMS level Dynamic Campaign. They should start with a decent Procedural Mission generator that is wrapped in a turn based strategy layer that can provide an actual "game" to fly your favorite jets in.
I gave up on third party campaigns because they have a pretty short play-span owing to DCS updates. A Dynamic Campaign is the ticket and I'm keeping my fingers crossed. I do enjoy creating scenarios in the mission editor but it's too predictable. 😆
I'm downloading the update for DCS Liberation as I watch this video. I would love to see a dynamic campaign for DCS, but not a deal-breaker with third-party add-ons as stand-ins.
Really hoping the dynamic campaign comes soon, it’s been what, like 2+ years since we’ve gotten any actual “gameplay” improvements to dcs (excluding modules) Sounds like the ground ai is being worked on for the DC, it’s getting really old bombing the same old dumb/stationary vehicles. Hope that we get a proper “intelligent” IADS AI to fight. Hopefully make SEAD/DEAD a bit more than just slinging HARMs
You know, it's interesting how difficult the campaign is to execute. Back in 1997 there was a video game called JSF. They had a dynamic campaign where targets would move throughout the map depending on what you got done during that sortie. I remember trying to track down a convoy and the convoy not being where the waypoint was because I was behind schedule and the convoy had already moved on. Shame they can't replicate something like that into modern hardware.
Because ED spend time making unwanted mods like the new FC2024... Most of their modules are still in early access not to mention the mostly abandoned stuff like Combined Arms. Their poor business practices are driving away 3rd party developers and they're scrounging for cash with pre-orders and garbage like these new lo-fi versions of already cheap and easy to learn modules.
Does anyone know how many years after official development stopped on Falcon 4 before the dynamic campaign was stable and playable? I gave up after a few years.
Can you explain what you mean? Falcon 4.0 was badly optimized but had a good base of ideas. The question is more how do you manage the golden triangle of quality / cost / time... (fortunately for BMS, time isn't a problem, nor money...) ED is oriented to go for quick and easy cash... FC 2024 is a living proof of such lack of dedication to add / fix the core game...
Dynamic campaign is cool and all but really I want a more robust mission editor. I like creating my own missions but the current editor is just an absolute nightmare to work with.
Truly dynamic campaign reminds me of people's expectations about space games' fleshed out procedural environments, like alien worlds with flora, fauna and living cities. Considering most who want it are the hardcore of this niche game, I think there is a genuine mismatch of expectations and reality. Even if we'll ever get one, it will fail to meet expectations. There are so many low hanging fruits to improve ahead of complex stuff with questionable returns, like getting more scripted campaigns for more modules and maps, and upgrading Caucasus.
I think the core issue you missed is that we're not their main customers. Their military clients are their main customers and everything ED releases to us is second hand scraps from their military contracts (Exhibit A - CH-47F Chinook). I get that a dynamic campaign isn't an easy thing to write overnight, but the Falcon BMS dynamic campaign was one intern working over the summer - there's no way ED couldn't have at least released a V1 dynamic campaign by now if we were important enough customers for them
It reminds me conspiracy theories about landing on the Moon. Some people say, if we did it back then, why we can't now. It seems the same with Falcon 4.0 campaign, except - for me - the F40 campaign I've seen and done, so I'm sure it happened (lol). Thanks for the video.
What would you guys think if they built the dynamic campaign in the cloud in order to support massive AI units and allow more players to join a central server. Maybe even a monthly service fee to help support the cloud servers required for operations.
I make my own dynamic campaigns. Long story short, I lay out all the pathing for blue and red, targets for both, AI logic, for example both sides will fly BARCAP until one side flies into enemy territory. Could be blue, could be red. Every unit is on the field from the start, but not activated. The activation is random every time, for air and ground units. It's never the same. So on my WW2 version, you can decide to go bomb a strategic target in France, you might run into several pairs of German fighters and heavy flak, or no fighters at all and moderate to no flak. All completely random. Currently working on a Syria one circa 1987, and will begin on a 1960's Vietnam one on Kola this weekend.
In a game about air combat, they can't even make the enemy AI not cheat. Just give us something simpler the bms, Ed doesn't have the skills to make anything more advanced.
Dynamic campaign takes focus and a huge workhour input, it's a ridiculously complex thing to pull off - and even harder to pull off well. I doubt we will ever see competition from ED for Falcon 4.0s campaign - because apart from reasonable AI logic - it would also require ground war, supply, support systems all being highly interconnected with an HQ AI making choices and forming missions based on what's going on. It's hard. So why do it when people are willing to pay $80 for a single plane anyway?
The problem with ED is priority management; a simple example is the modeling of the F/A-18 pilot's body, which is richly detailed, while other modules do not even have a visible pilot, such as the F-16 and FW190A8, and in other modules the pilot is poorly modeled. Another issue is the lack of focus in the WW2 era, a context in which ED is failing to make money because it stubbornly does not want to prioritize. Forget Dynamic Campaign at DCS World, it won't happen anytime soon!
DCS strenght is in their eyecandy Modules and maybe some maps.. Also the Carrier Ops. Not the dynamic campaign. It won't happen. We would need a quantum computer to run it.
I’ve not bought last couple of pre-orders as losing faith in ED delivering finished products. Phantom is last pre-order I’m doing at present, it’s all fine doing ridiculous realistic aircraft that takes years blah blah. what’s the point when the dynamic campaign is outstanding forever ? What real use is there for the Chinook?
I think it all comes down to money… ED thrives of a early access policy of using the next aircraft to pay for the previous…. A dynamic campaign would be more work for less profit
It's called running a business at an extremely basic level. NOTHING gets made if the bills don't get paid. Ever noticed there are too many non-profit charity flight sim developers?
Then again, a dynamic campaign would sort of auto-generate a lot of playable content, draw players in and make them eager to buy more aircraft and map modules, no?
@@Charles_Bro-sonyeah it would but ED also make money of campaign to sell and DCS code is soooooo crude it would be way to much effort for them to do quickly…. We only recently got multithreading
@@Charles_Bro-son That's exactly what it would do. People like me would start supporting the company again. I'm sure there are a huge amount of players who have just stopped buying the modules and maps waiting for them to start addressing these issues. They would have all of those people back and spending money again.
@@hook86 With the amount of money they must make I'm sure there is some room to allocate resources to these things. It's not basic business at this point, it's greed - as usual.
ED could literally kill BMS if they could only get their act together, instead we'll have another 15 years of awesome modules but mediocrity when it comes to the "world" part of the game.
great presentation, phh. to my mind, falcon 4 had the limitation that a player interacted with a computer program. the computer could render detail for the player and go X's and O's on the other a.i. units in the situation well outside the players bubble. dcs really favors the multi player engagement. are servers able to render all these detailed player bubbles for all engagements, determine X's and O's in the other areas without some significant super computer working the problem? ready to have bricks thrown at me for my computer ignorance. I honestly see this as a dead end for dcs. wars, war sim, do not allow for combatants to deal with making dinner or going to work. combat requires high sortie rates from a limited set of combatants, not commuter pilots. if player a gets shot down but doesn't "die", when he respawns how do you resolve the conflict of who gets the plane when player f wants to join in? admittedly, my recollection of falcon 4 could be faulty, but when I died in that campaign, I had to pick up from last mission successfully completed. how to do that in a dynamic multi player campaign.
When you die in Falcon 4 your mission is failed, your squadron loses an aircraft and you move on to another mission. If you keep messing up, chances are your campaign is not going to be very succesful.
First part of the comment is bang on. Second part, a "ticket" system where losing aircraft will deplete your air force can create a losing condition for multiple people, and enemy aerial victories can lead to ground victories where you can lose your strategic targets (power plants, factories, even enemy seizure of airfields preventing you from taking off).
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD that's what I'm driving at. dcs presents a multi-player environment. you, a player, have a few hours to join a server. you jump in, get whacked by some snake in the weeds while lifting off the runway and get to respawn to maximize your enjoyment of the time you can spare for play (run on sentence, sorry). how to replicate a dynamic, on-line, multi-player campaign when you have players respawning dozens of times, warping the "reality" of force replenishment (both aircraft and pilot)? the paths I see are a solo campaign, like falcon4, or a heavy handed (thinking a.i. war game judges) which prevent you from respawning before a certain amount of time has elapsed to "replicate" a replenishment lag.
@@michaels.chupka9411 Doesn't matter if you get shot down as Tom Cruise and respawn as Com Truise. You still lost a pilot and suffered an aerial defeat which will have a consequence.
They keep working on shiny new toys to sell us instead of working on the damn game! I mean toys are great but they aren't much good without a sandbox to play in :( I've stopped buying from them until they get it together.
I'm finding it more and more difficult to believe that they are actually working on this feature. Just like with the modules that are taking forever. People can't be working this long on stuff without producing anything to sell. At the same time they keep insisting on a very high standard. It doesn't make any sense with anything else than a skeleton crew or unpaid workers.
It's not complicated. We don't have it because ED absolutely sucks at having the required long term focus in general and secondly, they need to improve the performance massively.
THIS is what I have missed since the early 2000s in terms of dynamic campaigns! EE created missions that were then flown by AI unless you selected it. You could even jump into an ongoing mission, but I'd love to see something like this with supporting and opposing AI missions. ua-cam.com/video/96E0R81Uyng/v-deo.html
If you want to know what this would look like in the late game? Look into x4 after about 100 hours. Its awful. Maybe when our hardware can do it might be worth it.
Sorry, not buying anything else from ED until they sort 90% of their modules, how long does early access mean ? this map will be like a 10 year project like everything else ED does, oh and where’s my F-4 🤷🏻♂️
The simple answer is that the flight sim genre is too small today to warrant pumping thousands of $ and development time to create a realistic and persistent dynamic campaign. Most people - not the diehard simmers - who dabble with the genre stay hooked for weeks/months at best and move on. No one wants to invest into a highly costly project that consists of highly complex moving parts for folks only to play for awhile and move on. The few diehards will constantly whine and complain about realism and adding complexity + AI enhancements + computing power = no one wants to touch such a gargantuan task which has a high risk to fail and/or not recoup the investments.
There seems to be a lot of focus on the inclusion of dynamic campaign in DCS. Personally I'm not that bothered about getting a dynamic campaign. That's because when you're playing a good hand scripted campaign like those made by Reflected, they've got story and characters as well as the simulation. A dynamic campaign will never have the kind of depth and interest that a hand scripted campaign can have. I think this will be one of those features that seems like a landmark for DCS, but doesn't actually have as much impact as what people think when delivered.
I will be generous and suggest the developers may be overcomplicating this. But COVID as an excuse for delays? You mean that bug that confined people to their homes in front of their PCs..?
And delayed everything from storage, RAM, etc. I remember that time period clearly and everything came to a halt. Even not being able to quickly share stuff in an office setting slowed progress to a crawl.
As the time passes more and more, it surprises me indeed that DCS DC has not been finished yet. My personal bet is that the lack of a mature AI logic for 3D in DCS must be killing their DC engine.
Let's keep our BMS dream alive my friend :)
@@MaxWaldorf Always! ;-)
@@MaxWaldorf like he said, the gold standard
@@MaxWaldorf why dream? 4.38 is real! New Falcon - is an interesting bird..
I definitely feel that's a factor. Another factor, I believe, is simply the codebase itself. For example, take the ME. IMHO, there's a reason we don't have a modern mission editor with QOL features like drag n drop, copy/paste, etc. Its because the level of effort to go in and code these basic elements far exceeds the time/effort/risk to do so. I can't imagine ED just ignores the constant pleas for these features. A DC will likely need some sort of ME component and I seriously hope they are creating a new one instead of hacking something into the existing, outdated and likely brittle one. Its been 4 years since we saw that initial announcement. Personally, I don't expect to see a DC for a least another 2. I think Wags said there were 4 resources working on the DC in one of his recent Q&A videos. That's not a large team. Given the technical hurdles they have to overcome (logistics, massive AI flaws, performance, vulkan [not in 2024], multithreading, Artificial Intelligence in development, aging brittle codebase ....), I thing we are a long ways off from seeing anything.
"ED is still working on one" - one dude who opens the project once a month to look at it and walks away
opens the word file, saves it after not changing anything so date log can be seen as "WiP" and closes it..pretty much sums it up
A dynamic campaign would be fairly hard to create when your ai pilots just eject when they run out of fuel.
or just go full AB from GCI mission even though enemy is literally 400 miles away.. oh well..
Throw a couple dozen live units in the map and the simulation thread will choke DCS to single digit FPS. Until this issue is resolved, Dynamic Campaign will be a distant dream. 6 years of "in development" so far and counting.
Your PC can't handle a couple dozen units even with multithreading? I think that's a you issue, considering I can run far more than that with 144fps..
@@Steamthrower1 I have a pretty powerful PC and still see these issues in MP game play. The problem isn't the client but the very poor server tech of DCS.
i dont think you understand how complicated a modern DC engine would be, on modern hardware, with multithreading and 64 Bit memory addresses.
Developer of the F4 DC Engine spent 4-5 Years developing it, and that was for a single threaded 32-bit environment.
They are actually doing quite well at optimizing the game as of late. I play only VR, Multithreading helped, and with the latest patch, with the same graphics settings as before, i no longer experience stutter near ground on Pretense.
@@loneirregular1280 But it simply isn't enough for dynamic campaign. They have to rewrite the whole system how units are calculated and drawn in order to make DC a reality.
A major issue has to be the current AI implementation. It seems to fluctuate between lethal ineptitude (Two, ejecting!) and Eye of Sauron omniscience. Neither is desirable for a dynamic campaign.
Agree, AI still has massive, unresolved issues that would cause massive bias in favour of it in a campaign.
If they fixed AI it would make single player in user created missions much more viable without needing to use scripting or tricks to make it somewhat work.
It's not. Falcon 4 had far worse AI and did just fine.
The dynamic campaign could be sold as a module and DCS would make some money. Let’s not forget. The Falcon 4 dynamic campaign was created by an intern working alone. 4 or 5 programmers working on this full time should be able to deliver a nice dynamic campaign
No, it should be a core feature.
@@JETFOURLITREI think it would be fair to make it a paid module IF it was used to support getting some of the underlying features in performance and AI up to scratch and released as part of the core.
As that won’t happen though any time soon though it’s kind of irrelevant.
@@JETFOURLITRE No, they need a financial incentive to make it. I'd pay £50 for it straight away.
Yeah think of it like the Super Carrier. You can play the game without it but it is a lot more fun with it - if you use the carrier. I would rather pay for a dynamic campaign mod than for some of the other mods like the Chinook or the C-130.
@@JETFOURLITRE I'd rather pay for it and see it happening in my life time.
This why I will never give up on Falcon BMS!
Can't wait for BMS 4.38
Millions must BMS
@@Espere I cant wait for U4
Why should they make a dynamic campaign when all of you guys keep buying modules and maps, and create TV style production videos to help out DCS?
The mission editor in early 90s DI's Tornado is light years ahead of what you have in DCS. Not only that, it was easy to use. The RAF wanted DI to make a 'real' version for themselves. It even put a radius on your waypoints, so so good. ED should find who did it, and pay them a good whack for putting it in DCS.
The F4 'bubble' is how our own reality in the universe works I reckon. 😉👍🏿
DI Tornado campaign is also great IMHO. What I liked was that it was more visible what your mission did compared to FALCON's (excellent!) campaigns. knock out some SAMs and AAAs to create a gap in the air defence for the next round. Knock out enemy airfields to reduce # of interceptors. It was more simple and therefore less overwhelming than FALCON. The whole interface (planner and inside the aircraft) was a masterpiece of programming. What they did back then with so little computer power was amazing.
Tornado is a sim which I still fly every now and then . The video resolution is extremely low, but after a while I manage to "unsee" it and enjoy it again. And I really like that the terrain is fictional.
Glad someone else here used to have DI Tornado, it was way ahead of it's time for 1993-94, loved it. I was on 14 sqn back then and we were running it on the Avionics bays $20,000 286 with a 14" CRT.
@@slowhornet4802 exactly this. If you're doing it right, you're heads down anyway, graphics don't matter as much. Never had the same buzz I got with Tornado, F/A-18 Interceptor a distant 2nd, then Falcon 4.0 👌🏿
@@theaviatorexperience4886 We had a rental 486 SX2 , was gutted when it when back. Had to get a PC geek at 6th form to make me a boot disk or else it wouldn't run. Happy days.
There are some options, gladly. Home DC will come next
ua-cam.com/video/iAqKOldYvf0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/0ppoDZKKpGw/v-deo.html
Very nice video! I appreciate the research that you did to discuss this!
i could never believe 100% of what nick gray says. just like we needed core engine upgrades to finish the supercarrier. because i sure don't remember them saying any of which when i bought it 3/4 years ago. am i wrong?
I would be happy if there were more coalitions in ME. Blue, Red, Neutral, but maybe Green, Yellow and Orange too. Coalitions could be configured and trigged to be allies or enemies to each other. Your actions as player would effect who is in Your side and who are against You. Battlefield the overall situation would be much more intresting to determine coalition goals and in MP Your behavior would be part of something bigger than Yourself.
Very interesting. I might expect the DC to arrive around v. 3.2 I'm 73 and I am concerned I might not be able to enjoy it, but I am hopeful.
Multi threading has taken a lot longer to implement than anyone expected. I believe that a dynamic campaign requires more work on multi threading and Vulcan implementation. These sentiments have been echoed by wags, Nick and nine line over the years. If it was simple or cheap to implement, they would have done it already.
This was honestly our assumption when the multi-thread test started... We've got a ways to go....
@@RibshackTV and that’s Ok. Good stuff takes time. I’ll still be here.
Thanks for your great videos. Very enjoyable style. I hoe to see updates on A-7 and .... the F-104 on your channel in the near future. Especially the Starfighter would be a nice addition to the Cold War servers. Maybe not too popular since it is a bit limited in payload, but it would be an aircraft which would be truly demanding to fly (if they get the flight model right).
Prickly, we understand the reasons why, but it has become harder and harder to believe what ED says. But ok, let's analyze this:
1) it must be a daunting task to create a modern dynamic campaign. There is no doubt about that many things must be worked on before committing to a fully functional dynamic campaign.
2) Covid and Ukraine war: no doubt that these two factors must have affected some devs lives and work.
3) DCS is the side gig. MCS is the main one. We are beta testers for ED to sell to the military contractors. However, the perception in the community is that ED already has a long laundry list of things to do but only focuses on new modules to develop. And more modules, mean less time to fix old modules and work on core game problems. And being DCS secondary to ED, only aggravates the problem.
4) ED overpromises and underdelivers: the marketing plan and communication to customers by ED is terrible. One year ago I wouid say that ED cedes under the community pressure, and promises things that can't do just to calm the nerves of the masses. But now I realized that ED follows the thing that plagues the digital marketing world, the Product Launch Formula. ED creates a lot of hype through new products announcements, then newsletters promising new game features, then social media campaigns and when the hype is high enough, they launch a new product. It is no coincidence that they are talking about adding dynamic campaign, new logistic system and core game improvements when they have three products very close to being released: the F-4, the Chinnok and Kola map. Once a new product is launched, they work on it and forget about the rest. And then from time to time they come up with a new promise to create hype again. Rinse and reoeat.
5) Confindence is in all time low: ED says this, ED states that, and the community is not buying that. Literally. People are voting with their wallets. Of course therevare those who fall prey to the Product Launch Formula thing. ED wants our trust and support? Show us real progress. Stop releasing half baked products and show the community real progress on core game issues and past modules fixes.
6) Will we ever see a dynamic campaign? I doubt it. Supercarrier full, Vulkan, WWII Marianas? Never. These will only be used to create hypevas stated in 4). I even doubt that ED will be around n five years time.
Modules is where the money is for ED...as long as the player base continues to put their hands in their pockets for them why would you change the current business model?
It really took BMS to sort out Falcon, so it worked properly. Enjoyed your video!
I liked the Dynamic campaign in Falcon 4.0... Its sad that Ed hasnt done this yet.. Been waiting 4 yrs now... Kind of like alot of things with ED - Still waiting... Kind of like the Dynamic Aircraft slot that was mentioned a while ago - Still waiting... Sad, soo very sad..
an issue is that we have a hundred modules, where as Falcon 4 had only the main aircraft F-16.
@@retiredat44 Not even that. F4 abstracted the dynamic campaign, as if it were a board game.
Running a simulation all over the Korean peninsula would be computationally expensive. So Falcon 4 is a strategy game with a flight sim running on top.
10:07 What the hell is your wingman doing, Prickly? 😆
I had a Hornet wingman do that to me in the Aggressors BFM training campaign, only he flew directly into me and crashed us both at the very end of the hour-long mission. It took days for me to calm down and fly it again. 😄
Well, one reason might be that DCS server can't support a ground war beyond minor skirmishes, really. As it stands, with more than 20 ppl slotted in the ground war can't be more than 50 units moving about and shooting on the ground, lest the server will be on its knees and we see massive sync issues. So, not much point supporting a dynamic campaign until the server tech can actually handle managing a ground war.
Make Dynamic Campaign open source, put 2x senior devs and the community, at this point community will do the stuff for ED :p
They wouldn't be able to monetize it then but I agree. This is a huge undertaking and it is a lot easier to make it into a real thing if you outsource the bloody thing. There are a lot of crazy competent and talented people out there who would be more than happy to lend a hand for free.
Good point. Web editors gone far already
ua-cam.com/video/iAqKOldYvf0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/0ppoDZKKpGw/v-deo.html
@@neutchain7838 I would love to contribute to BMS and DCS but again, not open source
They'd have to open source the entire DCS code base.
Thank you Prickly.
I wish ED would stop trying to please everyone and just finish everything they have out right now. No more new stuff that way they can concentrate on finishing what they have out.
They need money, therefore are doing exactly the opposite
They're pleasing themselves with the money all those modules are making, money they need.... the endless cycle.
You only get a company concentrating on their current software if they are getting paid subs/maintenance.
I thought that was a super interesting interview. I really liked how he described the campaign engine....he looked at the whole project as a grand strategy game and the player's actions were adding heavy modifiers ( positive or negative depending on the outcome of the mission ). I've played a few campaigns in DCS and I really enjoy them for the first time but that dynamic campaign is really something else. With all the random radio traffic going on and the fact that they're all real flights going about their business, the ATC handling traffic around the airport the whole battlespace feels like it really is alive and there is a war going on. It's pretty amazing even by today's standards. Would be amazing to see if someone made a proper dynamic campaign today with the AI tech available nowadays. Not talking about combat AI, but generating radio traffic between JTAC and CAS planes, around airfields, guard channel, etc...
DCS Liberation is a fan made version of a dynamic campaign and does pretty much everything you mentioned and its really good. Not sure why DCS can't do it
Yes, i somewhat agree. Liberation is great, but it has problems and bugs. I don't think it is a ready solution as often times you will have to do some tweaking. I think it's more directed toward MP as well. Lets not forget it smore gamey too, not like Falcon 4.
@@JD96893but the reason Liberation is buggy and gamey is because its fan based not from the company. This thing was announced 6 years ago, with “major” milestones announced 4 years ago. I know COVID was a thing but 6 years is a long time to wait for an entire game, let alone a feature of a game. But this can be applied to a lot of the features ED has talked about (ATC, weather, Vulcan, etc). Their focus on pumping out new products that they don’t finish is really what is hurting them.
@@lancedooley9304 yeah I know it's fan based, it's pretty good for what it is. I think ED is pushing short term revenue with new aircraft and maps. I think that most people don't realize that most modules don't provide a drastically different experience from each other. Or they think that they do when they really don't. You are basically doing the same thing with minor variations depending on the module. The Chinook for example will do the exact same things as the hip more or less.(assuming the new logistics system isn't implemented or is on both modules). The F5 and mig21 fill the same roles. The only major difference is performance and weapons. War Thunder has this exact same problem down to the letter. All the devs do is push out 'new' content in the form of vehicles and aircraft without really focusing on core game features. Eventually people get bored because the core game loop is basically the same if you're in a panzer 3 or an Abrams sep 3. In DCS the core game loop is shitty ground 'AI' which is really just a couple scripts, AI aircraft that have UFO performance, and repetitive static/sterile combat gameplay. I think Falcon 4 is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, because you only had(up until recently) the F-16, but a very dynamic gameplay loop which has kept people playing for over 2 decades and it has an active modding community with BMS.
Liberation and its fork Retribution are the closest thing to a DC we have for the moment. It's fan based and way better than what ED has achieved so far
@@fredericchen6380 have you not played Pretense DC? Its an amazing effort at a real-time campaign that isn't turn-based.
I've been in this hobby since I was a teen in the mid 80's (C-64) and have played practically every flight sim available over the years. At this stage of life (I'm pushing 60 in a couple of years), I've given up hope for a DCS DC in my lifetime! 😂 However, since this is my primary means of entertainment (MSFS occasionally), a save-game feature would really add to my enjoyment, since my play time is limited and I do enjoy completing missions/campaigns and doing cold starts.
I don't even need a BMS level Dynamic Campaign. They should start with a decent Procedural Mission generator that is wrapped in a turn based strategy layer that can provide an actual "game" to fly your favorite jets in.
check out Pretense dynamic campaign. Its real time campaign, instead of turn-based.
They are too busy reselling FF modules as FC2024 💀
I gave up on third party campaigns because they have a pretty short play-span owing to DCS updates. A Dynamic Campaign is the ticket and I'm keeping my fingers crossed. I do enjoy creating scenarios in the mission editor but it's too predictable. 😆
I'm downloading the update for DCS Liberation as I watch this video. I would love to see a dynamic campaign for DCS, but not a deal-breaker with third-party add-ons as stand-ins.
Liberation is a really clever tool, but I find the "lines linking bases" thing really limiting.
Really hoping the dynamic campaign comes soon, it’s been what, like 2+ years since we’ve gotten any actual “gameplay” improvements to dcs (excluding modules)
Sounds like the ground ai is being worked on for the DC, it’s getting really old bombing the same old dumb/stationary vehicles. Hope that we get a proper “intelligent” IADS AI to fight. Hopefully make SEAD/DEAD a bit more than just slinging HARMs
You know, it's interesting how difficult the campaign is to execute. Back in 1997 there was a video game called JSF. They had a dynamic campaign where targets would move throughout the map depending on what you got done during that sortie. I remember trying to track down a convoy and the convoy not being where the waypoint was because I was behind schedule and the convoy had already moved on. Shame they can't replicate something like that into modern hardware.
Can be made on modern hardware. Can't be tacked on to old code. Has to be done from scratch.
Gotta love that they'll release every module in various states of completeness. However the DC has to be "perfect".
Because ED spend time making unwanted mods like the new FC2024... Most of their modules are still in early access not to mention the mostly abandoned stuff like Combined Arms. Their poor business practices are driving away 3rd party developers and they're scrounging for cash with pre-orders and garbage like these new lo-fi versions of already cheap and easy to learn modules.
Does anyone know how many years after official development stopped on Falcon 4 before the dynamic campaign was stable and playable? I gave up after a few years.
Can you explain what you mean?
Falcon 4.0 was badly optimized but had a good base of ideas.
The question is more how do you manage the golden triangle of quality / cost / time... (fortunately for BMS, time isn't a problem, nor money...)
ED is oriented to go for quick and easy cash... FC 2024 is a living proof of such lack of dedication to add / fix the core game...
Prickly do you have to have the music on in the background.
Until then, the community steps up and is delivering to feed the campaign need with DCS Liberation.
Dynamic campaign is cool and all but really I want a more robust mission editor. I like creating my own missions but the current editor is just an absolute nightmare to work with.
You could use the dynamic campaign as a mission editor...
@@mro9466 We'll see. Sounds mostly like we can set parameters for the campaign generation at the moment.
Any news on DCS Web Editor?
Truly dynamic campaign reminds me of people's expectations about space games' fleshed out procedural environments, like alien worlds with flora, fauna and living cities.
Considering most who want it are the hardcore of this niche game, I think there is a genuine mismatch of expectations and reality. Even if we'll ever get one, it will fail to meet expectations.
There are so many low hanging fruits to improve ahead of complex stuff with questionable returns, like getting more scripted campaigns for more modules and maps, and upgrading Caucasus.
I think the core issue you missed is that we're not their main customers. Their military clients are their main customers and everything ED releases to us is second hand scraps from their military contracts (Exhibit A - CH-47F Chinook). I get that a dynamic campaign isn't an easy thing to write overnight, but the Falcon BMS dynamic campaign was one intern working over the summer - there's no way ED couldn't have at least released a V1 dynamic campaign by now if we were important enough customers for them
The best way to sum up bms to dcs is “tony stark (intern) built this (bms campaign) in a cave, with a box of scraps!”
It reminds me conspiracy theories about landing on the Moon. Some people say, if we did it back then, why we can't now. It seems the same with Falcon 4.0 campaign, except - for me - the F40 campaign I've seen and done, so I'm sure it happened (lol). Thanks for the video.
What would you guys think if they built the dynamic campaign in the cloud in order to support massive AI units and allow more players to join a central server. Maybe even a monthly service fee to help support the cloud servers required for operations.
I make my own dynamic campaigns. Long story short, I lay out all the pathing for blue and red, targets for both, AI logic, for example both sides will fly BARCAP until one side flies into enemy territory. Could be blue, could be red. Every unit is on the field from the start, but not activated. The activation is random every time, for air and ground units. It's never the same. So on my WW2 version, you can decide to go bomb a strategic target in France, you might run into several pairs of German fighters and heavy flak, or no fighters at all and moderate to no flak. All completely random. Currently working on a Syria one circa 1987, and will begin on a 1960's Vietnam one on Kola this weekend.
None of missions and camps should ever be static. They should have forced to create some randomness in every mission, from ground up.
To be truthful , when this does come out i'll be buying a whole lot of modules that otherwise i never would have purchased.....go for it ED!!!
In a game about air combat, they can't even make the enemy AI not cheat. Just give us something simpler the bms, Ed doesn't have the skills to make anything more advanced.
Dynamic campaign takes focus and a huge workhour input, it's a ridiculously complex thing to pull off - and even harder to pull off well. I doubt we will ever see competition from ED for Falcon 4.0s campaign - because apart from reasonable AI logic - it would also require ground war, supply, support systems all being highly interconnected with an HQ AI making choices and forming missions based on what's going on. It's hard. So why do it when people are willing to pay $80 for a single plane anyway?
The problem with ED is priority management; a simple example is the modeling of the F/A-18 pilot's body, which is richly detailed, while other modules do not even have a visible pilot, such as the F-16 and FW190A8, and in other modules the pilot is poorly modeled. Another issue is the lack of focus in the WW2 era, a context in which ED is failing to make money because it stubbornly does not want to prioritize. Forget Dynamic Campaign at DCS World, it won't happen anytime soon!
DCS strenght is in their eyecandy Modules and maybe some maps.. Also the Carrier Ops. Not the dynamic campaign. It won't happen. We would need a quantum computer to run it.
only problem is IMO, the devs dont spend enough time to create. I bet if we didnt have a f-16 and f18 we could proably had some sort of campaign
I don't see how DirectX or Vulcan would be involved with processing units in any shape or form.
I’ve not bought last couple of pre-orders as losing faith in ED delivering finished products. Phantom is last pre-order I’m doing at present, it’s all fine doing ridiculous realistic aircraft that takes years blah blah. what’s the point when the dynamic campaign is outstanding forever ? What real use is there for the Chinook?
I think it all comes down to money… ED thrives of a early access policy of using the next aircraft to pay for the previous…. A dynamic campaign would be more work for less profit
It's called running a business at an extremely basic level. NOTHING gets made if the bills don't get paid. Ever noticed there are too many non-profit charity flight sim developers?
Then again, a dynamic campaign would sort of auto-generate a lot of playable content, draw players in and make them eager to buy more aircraft and map modules, no?
@@Charles_Bro-sonyeah it would but ED also make money of campaign to sell and DCS code is soooooo crude it would be way to much effort for them to do quickly…. We only recently got multithreading
@@Charles_Bro-son That's exactly what it would do. People like me would start supporting the company again. I'm sure there are a huge amount of players who have just stopped buying the modules and maps waiting for them to start addressing these issues. They would have all of those people back and spending money again.
@@hook86 With the amount of money they must make I'm sure there is some room to allocate resources to these things. It's not basic business at this point, it's greed - as usual.
ED could literally kill BMS if they could only get their act together, instead we'll have another 15 years of awesome modules but mediocrity when it comes to the "world" part of the game.
You cannot kill a team that works for passion...
Right now with what we have in stock for future of BMS, we could be the ones doing harm to ED 😅
They could kill War Thunder if they wanted too.
BMS is a passion project, DCS will never kill it.
Any hint on when those new bms powers will be unleashed? 😊@@MaxWaldorf
They can charge for modules but can't easily do that for changes to the base game
great presentation, phh. to my mind, falcon 4 had the limitation that a player interacted with a computer program. the computer could render detail for the player and go X's and O's on the other a.i. units in the situation well outside the players bubble. dcs really favors the multi player engagement. are servers able to render all these detailed player bubbles for all engagements, determine X's and O's in the other areas without some significant super computer working the problem? ready to have bricks thrown at me for my computer ignorance. I honestly see this as a dead end for dcs. wars, war sim, do not allow for combatants to deal with making dinner or going to work. combat requires high sortie rates from a limited set of combatants, not commuter pilots. if player a gets shot down but doesn't "die", when he respawns how do you resolve the conflict of who gets the plane when player f wants to join in? admittedly, my recollection of falcon 4 could be faulty, but when I died in that campaign, I had to pick up from last mission successfully completed. how to do that in a dynamic multi player campaign.
When you die in Falcon 4 your mission is failed, your squadron loses an aircraft and you move on to another mission. If you keep messing up, chances are your campaign is not going to be very succesful.
First part of the comment is bang on. Second part, a "ticket" system where losing aircraft will deplete your air force can create a losing condition for multiple people, and enemy aerial victories can lead to ground victories where you can lose your strategic targets (power plants, factories, even enemy seizure of airfields preventing you from taking off).
@@jukahri which is what I remember. odds were you would continue in the campaign if you exercised "good" judgment.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD that's what I'm driving at. dcs presents a multi-player environment. you, a player, have a few hours to join a server. you jump in, get whacked by some snake in the weeds while lifting off the runway and get to respawn to maximize your enjoyment of the time you can spare for play (run on sentence, sorry). how to replicate a dynamic, on-line, multi-player campaign when you have players respawning dozens of times, warping the "reality" of force replenishment (both aircraft and pilot)? the paths I see are a solo campaign, like falcon4, or a heavy handed (thinking a.i. war game judges) which prevent you from respawning before a certain amount of time has elapsed to "replicate" a replenishment lag.
@@michaels.chupka9411 Doesn't matter if you get shot down as Tom Cruise and respawn as Com Truise. You still lost a pilot and suffered an aerial defeat which will have a consequence.
They keep working on shiny new toys to sell us instead of working on the damn game! I mean toys are great but they aren't much good without a sandbox to play in :( I've stopped buying from them until they get it together.
I'm finding it more and more difficult to believe that they are actually working on this feature. Just like with the modules that are taking forever. People can't be working this long on stuff without producing anything to sell. At the same time they keep insisting on a very high standard. It doesn't make any sense with anything else than a skeleton crew or unpaid workers.
Exactly - dc was announced in 2019 and i just have no faith it will ever be done.
For the record, the background music can get tiring over the full length.
Bcs World Map is more important of course...
not as important as reading what you write...
@@joejoe2658 Oh look sleepyJoe is a World map fanboy already
It's not complicated. We don't have it because ED absolutely sucks at having the required long term focus in general and secondly, they need to improve the performance massively.
But will it be a coup??
THIS is what I have missed since the early 2000s in terms of dynamic campaigns! EE created missions that were then flown by AI unless you selected it. You could even jump into an ongoing mission, but I'd love to see something like this with supporting and opposing AI missions.
ua-cam.com/video/96E0R81Uyng/v-deo.html
If you want to know what this would look like in the late game? Look into x4 after about 100 hours. Its awful. Maybe when our hardware can do it might be worth it.
Sorry, not buying anything else from ED until they sort 90% of their modules, how long does early access mean ? this map will be like a 10 year project like everything else ED does, oh and where’s my F-4 🤷🏻♂️
If ED produce a dynamic campaing, they lose their cut of paid campaign revenue.
The real reason that we don't have a dynamic campaign in DCS yet is very simpy: the lack of competition in this market.
But BMS is competing for player attention.
The simple answer is that the flight sim genre is too small today to warrant pumping thousands of $ and development time to create a realistic and persistent dynamic campaign. Most people - not the diehard simmers - who dabble with the genre stay hooked for weeks/months at best and move on. No one wants to invest into a highly costly project that consists of highly complex moving parts for folks only to play for awhile and move on. The few diehards will constantly whine and complain about realism and adding complexity + AI enhancements + computing power = no one wants to touch such a gargantuan task which has a high risk to fail and/or not recoup the investments.
All clear but simply if the dinamic campaign comes out who would ever buy another campaign?!? 😂😂😂
Ppl looking for a story...
There seems to be a lot of focus on the inclusion of dynamic campaign in DCS. Personally I'm not that bothered about getting a dynamic campaign. That's because when you're playing a good hand scripted campaign like those made by Reflected, they've got story and characters as well as the simulation. A dynamic campaign will never have the kind of depth and interest that a hand scripted campaign can have. I think this will be one of those features that seems like a landmark for DCS, but doesn't actually have as much impact as what people think when delivered.
I will be generous and suggest the developers may be overcomplicating this.
But COVID as an excuse for delays? You mean that bug that confined people to their homes in front of their PCs..?
And delayed everything from storage, RAM, etc. I remember that time period clearly and everything came to a halt. Even not being able to quickly share stuff in an office setting slowed progress to a crawl.
Because they won't make money from it.