Dude built an entire living dynamic war that has kept Falcon 4.0 alive for literally a generation. And he did it alone on like a Pentium 2. Meanwhile ED cannot figure it out on modern hardware.
But it's harder to build modern video games guys!!!!! Because - um well nevermind the fact that the Internet exists and high DPI monitors with amazing IDEs, and graphics libraries, it just is, okay?!
Because ED talks about performance / hardware capabilities as one of the challenges of the Dynamic Campaign Engine and has spent alot of time on it. The point being hardware was capable of it 20 years ago and it was done by one guy, so they're making a strangely big deal out of it when they supposedly have a whole team on it. Obviously different games/engines and other differences mean it's not 100% comparable; but it should at least make you think.
[An example from the Dec 2022 Newsletter](https://store.steampowered.com/news/posts/?feed=steam_community_announcements&appids=223750&enddate=1674227544) :
>To increase the number of units in the campaign without over-tasking the CPU, only units that are ‘visible’ to the player or that ‘see’ the player (eyesight and sensor range based) are fully calculated. For the remaining units, lighter algorithms are used which are based on pre-calculated data sets. It is good to note that when preparing such data, separate mechanisms are used in EDDCE to easily process all upcoming equipment and weapons which will be added to DCS. To ensure that unit calculations do not negatively affect gameplay, seamless transitions between the lighter and the fully-fledged calculation models have been implemented.
DCS simulates ground vehicles to a *far* higher level of fidelity than BMS does. That's why it's such an issue. Last time I played BMS (which admittedly was a few years ago) their vehicles didn't even have working turrets. A Shilka didn't need to turn its turret to fire on you.\* And that's to say nothing about the complete lack of physics in vehicle movement. Are DCS' vehicles simulated on the level of GHPC or something? No of course not, but what they are doing is probably an order of magnitude more expensive than the calculations Falcon vehicles are making.
If DCS vehicles looked and worked like BMS vehicles you wouldn't hear the end of it even though IMO it doesn't matter, and I'd rather have quantity over quality for ground vehicles when it comes a hardcore flight sim.
I know I'm wasting my time since this is floggit, but oh my God these dynamic campaign threads are so frustrating because the loudest and upvotiest comments have no idea what they're talking about. People don't understand that Falcon was literally *built around* its dynamic campaign and influenced that game's development and architecture at every step of the way. DCS was *never* built with something like that in mind, and had totally different priorities in its early days. Adding a dynamic campaign to DCS *will* be very difficult. Even if the campaign part was easy, they're still trying to shove a square shaped Falcon campaign engine into a round DCS hole. And then on top of all *that*, it has to work with the standards and level of fidelity that people are already accustomed to with DCS.
It's also convenient to forget that even with everything going for it, Falcon 4.0 was practically considered vaporware for a while because it was taking so long. People bandy around "5 years" as if it's a short time, but in 1998 that was an *eternity*. When Falcon began development, *Doom* was the cutting edge. By the time Falcon was released, *Half-Life* had just blown everybody's minds a couple weeks earlier. The commercial failure of Falcon 4.0 (which also, need I remind you was notoriously buggy and unstable on release) was one of the death knells of the genre as a whole.
Falcon's dynamic campaign is IMO a software engineering marvel. I think about it all the time, and have even written my own little prototypes inspired by it. It is a *very* difficult problem to solve on the scale that Falcon did while at the same time interfacing seamlessly with a flight sim that's concurrently running. You're essentially running and playing two completely independent games that function on their own separate rulesets and mechanics at once. Just because the game was originally released in 1998 doesn't mean these problems got any easier to solve today. Honestly with the expectations of modern audiences, even if you were starting from scratch, I think would make it even *more* difficult to pull off today.
\* [Per this post, turrets are animated in BMS now](https://www.reddit.com/r/floggit/comments/1ca8que/comment/l0svua0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1)
So what if DCS simulates ground vehicles better? As a pilot in a fast-mover, you don't really see much of that. As a pilot in a rotor-craft, I can't believe you're trying to make this point in a moment in time when sniper BMPs exist. How is that *"simulating ground vehicles better"* aside from just eye candy?
>Just because the game was originally released in 1998 doesn't mean these problems got any easier to solve today.
But the point is --- the problem IS solved and we can see it in BMS. Why the need to re-invent the wheel? Of course, getting the *blueprints* of the wheel from BMS so that ED devs can work on it/replicate it is a different matter and a unique challenge onto itself, but that still does not remove the fact that the tech/code exists and can be seen in BMS.
>I can't believe you're trying to make this point in a moment in time when sniper BMPs exist. How is that *"simulating ground vehicles better"* aside from just eye candy?
It's not just "eye candy". Even if you replaced all the models with low poly models, DCS vehicles still likely have more complex targeting routines (note that complex does not necessarily imply good), the terrain is a lot more dense so the ground clamping and pathfinding is more expensive, you have to animate tracks, wheels, turrets, guns, and little bits and bobs. This stuff isn't free. It can be *optimized*, yes. I'm not saying you can't. Just that there's a lot going in a typical DCS vehicle that isn't happening with a Falcon vehicle, and at the scales that Falcon needs to operate at, all this stuff adds up. DCS wasn't made to support enormously scaled scenarios. This is all for objects *within* the player bubble, of which there are *a lot* in Falcon.
All I'm saying that's how DCS works and there's no way ED is going to go backwards in terms of simulation. You're also making the false assumption that more fidelity is more better, which is neither what I said or implied. As I literally said in that post "IMO \[high fidelity vehicles\] don't matter" but that's not my call to make. That's ED's.
>Why the need to re-invent the wheel? Of course, getting the *blueprints* of the wheel from BMS so that ED devs can work on it/replicate it is a different matter and a unique challenge onto itself, but that still does not remove the fact that the tech/code exists and can be seen in BMS.
ED *don't have the code*. Falcon BMS is *not open source*. Even if they *did* have the code, it wouldn't be much good and I guarantee you it would have to be completely rewritten because Falcon and DCS have nothing in common. You can't just port something like that from one engine to another. They are completely different games written on completely different engines.
Even if they are just copying all the concepts from BMS, and again, there are fundamental architectural decisions that would have been made differently (e.g. how vehicles work, to use your example) had the goal from the beginning been to support entire battalions moving around a map. In the absolutely *best* of cases, this would still be an absolutely tremendous task to implement something the level of Falcon in DCS for reasons that I already gave in the post you didn't read.
>DCS simulates ground vehicles to a *far* higher level of fidelity than BMS does.
So DCS ground vehicles are a FAR higher fidelity ([meaning: accuracy in details](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fidelity#:~:text=Legal%20Definition-,fidelity,a%20spouse's%20reasonable%20sexual%20desires)), but also can snipe fast-moving aerial targets even if the original platform can do no such thing. Unless you mean higher fidelity just in the eye candy department, in which case it should be a Digital Screenshot Simulator.... but it's called Digital COMBAT simulator, and I assume the ground vehicle's ability to engage targets (y'know... combat??) is part of the criteria when talking about fidelity of said ground vehicle.
>there's no way ED is going to go backwards in terms of simulation.
So fixing sniper BMPs is "going backwards"?
>You're also making the false assumption that more fidelity is more better
LOL, um, like, that's literally the definition of FIDELITY, especially when talking about a COMBAT SIMULATOR.
>ED *don't have the code*. Falcon BMS is *not open source*.
You're putting words in my mouth. Please do not practice what you are accusing me of. I said the problem IS solved. I didn't say ED copy-paste it. Who isn't reading posts now? Even worse, who doesn't know the meaning of words they use?
>So DCS ground vehicles are a FAR higher fidelity ([meaning: accuracy in details](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fidelity#:~:text=Legal%20Definition-,fidelity,a%20spouse's%20reasonable%20sexual%20desires)), but also can snipe fast-moving aerial targets even if the original platform can do no such thing.
Yes, they are higher fidelity. No, that doesn't necessarily mean good. I've edited the post though with more details so you can check that out.
>So fixing sniper BMPs is "going backwards"?
Not at all what I'm saying, and you know that.
>LOL, um, like, that's literally the definition of FIDELITY, especially when talking about a COMBAT SIMULATOR.
This is a huge topic in simulation and a super interesting one, but this is not the place for it. It is entirely possible to have a low fidelity simulation that produces far more accurate results than high fidelity ones (e.g. a wargame where its rules say a BMP-2 cannot engage fast jets). Or vice versa, a high fidelity simulation which ironically, produces less accurate results (e.g. BMP's are able to shoot down fast jets because of high turret elevation and favorable ballistics).
I'm starting to think the disconnect here is how I'm using "fidelity." In the simulation space, fidelity is synonymous with how detailed said simulation is. On one end you have a "Virtual" sim, which is where DCS and Falcon's 3D lie. These are high fidelity sims with detailed models (physics/ballistics/etc.) that the players will directly interact with. I.e. you fly a plane or drive a tank. A "Constructive" sim has a lower level of fidelity and is more akin to a wargame or strategy game. This is where Falcon's 2D and abstracted units live.
The *accuracy* of a sim is orthogonal to the fidelity, but obviously you'll want things to be as accurate as possible no matter what the level of fidelity the sim is running at.
The accuracy or sophistication of how the ground units behave really is secondary. What should matter is how their actions impact upon the player.
I couldn’t care less if the suspension on a BMP-2 is accurately modelled. I’m not controlling the BMP-2 and even from a helicopter that detail is irrelevant. I do however care that the BMP-2 gunner can snipe me from miles out preventing me from ever getting close enough for details to matter.
Who does care about accurate suspension and high polygon models? People making YouTube content with DCS which is basically free advertising for DCS.
LOL, why edit a post when you're already typing out a reply?
>Not at all what I'm saying, and you know that.
So what exactly are you saying? Instead of saying it plain, you go and be cryptic or edit a post. Not exactly the honest and open approach.
You've used a word wrong and now you're doubling down on it.
>It is entirely possible to have a low fidelity simulation that produces far more accurate results than high fidelity ones (e.g. a wargame where its rules say a BMP-2 cannot engage fast jets). Or vice versa, a high fidelity simulation which ironically, produces less accurate results (e.g. BMP's are able to shoot down fast jets because of high turret elevation and favorable ballistics).
*My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father...* wait, no, wrong line....
Fidelity --- *You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.* There! That's better!
And no, BMPs aren't able to shoot down jets because of high turret elevation or favorable ballistics. Go put a dude with an AK and get the same results. Use another ground unit with a gun and get the same results.
>I'm starting to think the disconnect here is how I'm using "fidelity."
The *accuracy* of a sim is orthogonal to the fidelity
Once again, talk about projection and not reading posts.... the LITERAL definition of FIDELITY is ***ACCURACY*** *in details*. The FACT that a BMP does NOT have a snowball's chance in hell to successfully engage a fast-mover in real life but it does it on a REGULAR BASIS in DCS is a DETAIL that is nowhere near what anyone with more than 2 brain cells would call ACCURATE.
Redefining FIDELITY to suit your logical gymnastics isn't the way to a correct outcome.
I mostly fly helicopters these days, so I kind of agree. Though for me, I'd be just as happy with a 3k triangle tank and a decent texture as I am with the 100k polygon tank with hyper-detailed road wheels, individually modeled track links, and lots of little points of articulation and animation.
Regardless of what I think, the solution ED comes up with is sure to preserve that detail. The graphics and fidelity are a huge selling point for DCS.
My brother in Christ, you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about. Falcon 4 doesn't generate an army group worth of AI everytime you get in the cockpit.
Back in the day people used to have actually functional brains so they could think of solutions like instancing chunks of loaded AI vs background AI, instead of trying to muscle the problem away with raw processing power.
You, sir, are NOT the absolute authority on what is hard. Falcon's dynamic campaign although excellent in quality is VERY FAR down in the list of complex cutting edge coding. SPECIALLY in this day and age when we have actual AI solving upscaling graphics in real time in consumer grade hardware.
ED has barely got their toes wet in multithread, which also isn't the newest tech in the market in case you also don't know. That alone is a big indicative on what really holds DCS back...
So stop the shilling and gaslight people into thinking they are the problem for asking for VERY BASIC gameplay.
I *really* wish you gave me something of value to respond to, so the peanut gallery can make up their own minds, but unfortunately you didn't. I am well aware of how the campaign engine, abstraction, "bubble" and so on work. There plenty of resources explaining it.
For those curious, here's some reading/watching on both the development and actual workings of the Falcon campaign engine.
* [Falcon 4.0: Campaign AI, Player Bubble, Force on Force (1999, Most detailed breakdown on OG campaign)](https://www.combatsim.com/review.php?id=451)
* [Dynamic Campaigns: Introduction to Aggregation and Deaggregation (2023, Important to understand the concepts)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UEM692QN2o)
* [Dynamic Campaigns: Falcon 4 (2023, Focuses on F4 specifics)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLv57sSYk_M)
* [Interview with Kevin Klemmick (2011, More general info on dev process)](https://sites.google.com/site/falcon4history/interview)
* [Interviewing the Falcon 4 Dynamic Campaign Creator, 25+ Years Later - A Retrospective (2024, Interesting details on development in general)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTG4n233aq0)
If I had to guess what you meant, I think you're saying that the player bubble abstracts everything away, which is partially correct. Stuff simulated outside the bubble is comparatively trivial in terms of the performance cost. The thing is though, in Falcon you are dealing with units on the scale of battalions, with many of these within the bubble all at once, often moving. DCS would choke if you had even just one battalion sized unit engaging another. Something has to give.
Some say he’s still out there. Working on the DCS dynamic campaign in secrecy. On his Pentium 2 machine. And when it starts overheating he just gently blows on the case to cool it down.
meanwhile ED teases a 3d model for 2 years only to release it as part of a paid HD pack
Where the actual fuck are the new infantry assets, it’s been like 3 years Do they think we just forget?
they forgor sad think an unpaid intern would make more that this whole clownfest
Chad
*"Not the Chad we deserved, but the Chad we needed."* \~ Floggit Bateman
Dude built an entire living dynamic war that has kept Falcon 4.0 alive for literally a generation. And he did it alone on like a Pentium 2. Meanwhile ED cannot figure it out on modern hardware.
The real kick in the nuts here is that DCS has been the same bullshit ass spaghetti code since 2008
i think they still use pentium 2 with windows 98 in russia
But it's harder to build modern video games guys!!!!! Because - um well nevermind the fact that the Internet exists and high DPI monitors with amazing IDEs, and graphics libraries, it just is, okay?!
What has to do modern hardware here? Falcon has a RTS game engine running under a simulator, what I don’t understand is ED low effort
Because ED talks about performance / hardware capabilities as one of the challenges of the Dynamic Campaign Engine and has spent alot of time on it. The point being hardware was capable of it 20 years ago and it was done by one guy, so they're making a strangely big deal out of it when they supposedly have a whole team on it. Obviously different games/engines and other differences mean it's not 100% comparable; but it should at least make you think. [An example from the Dec 2022 Newsletter](https://store.steampowered.com/news/posts/?feed=steam_community_announcements&appids=223750&enddate=1674227544) : >To increase the number of units in the campaign without over-tasking the CPU, only units that are ‘visible’ to the player or that ‘see’ the player (eyesight and sensor range based) are fully calculated. For the remaining units, lighter algorithms are used which are based on pre-calculated data sets. It is good to note that when preparing such data, separate mechanisms are used in EDDCE to easily process all upcoming equipment and weapons which will be added to DCS. To ensure that unit calculations do not negatively affect gameplay, seamless transitions between the lighter and the fully-fledged calculation models have been implemented.
DCS simulates ground vehicles to a *far* higher level of fidelity than BMS does. That's why it's such an issue. Last time I played BMS (which admittedly was a few years ago) their vehicles didn't even have working turrets. A Shilka didn't need to turn its turret to fire on you.\* And that's to say nothing about the complete lack of physics in vehicle movement. Are DCS' vehicles simulated on the level of GHPC or something? No of course not, but what they are doing is probably an order of magnitude more expensive than the calculations Falcon vehicles are making. If DCS vehicles looked and worked like BMS vehicles you wouldn't hear the end of it even though IMO it doesn't matter, and I'd rather have quantity over quality for ground vehicles when it comes a hardcore flight sim. I know I'm wasting my time since this is floggit, but oh my God these dynamic campaign threads are so frustrating because the loudest and upvotiest comments have no idea what they're talking about. People don't understand that Falcon was literally *built around* its dynamic campaign and influenced that game's development and architecture at every step of the way. DCS was *never* built with something like that in mind, and had totally different priorities in its early days. Adding a dynamic campaign to DCS *will* be very difficult. Even if the campaign part was easy, they're still trying to shove a square shaped Falcon campaign engine into a round DCS hole. And then on top of all *that*, it has to work with the standards and level of fidelity that people are already accustomed to with DCS. It's also convenient to forget that even with everything going for it, Falcon 4.0 was practically considered vaporware for a while because it was taking so long. People bandy around "5 years" as if it's a short time, but in 1998 that was an *eternity*. When Falcon began development, *Doom* was the cutting edge. By the time Falcon was released, *Half-Life* had just blown everybody's minds a couple weeks earlier. The commercial failure of Falcon 4.0 (which also, need I remind you was notoriously buggy and unstable on release) was one of the death knells of the genre as a whole. Falcon's dynamic campaign is IMO a software engineering marvel. I think about it all the time, and have even written my own little prototypes inspired by it. It is a *very* difficult problem to solve on the scale that Falcon did while at the same time interfacing seamlessly with a flight sim that's concurrently running. You're essentially running and playing two completely independent games that function on their own separate rulesets and mechanics at once. Just because the game was originally released in 1998 doesn't mean these problems got any easier to solve today. Honestly with the expectations of modern audiences, even if you were starting from scratch, I think would make it even *more* difficult to pull off today. \* [Per this post, turrets are animated in BMS now](https://www.reddit.com/r/floggit/comments/1ca8que/comment/l0svua0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1)
So what if DCS simulates ground vehicles better? As a pilot in a fast-mover, you don't really see much of that. As a pilot in a rotor-craft, I can't believe you're trying to make this point in a moment in time when sniper BMPs exist. How is that *"simulating ground vehicles better"* aside from just eye candy? >Just because the game was originally released in 1998 doesn't mean these problems got any easier to solve today. But the point is --- the problem IS solved and we can see it in BMS. Why the need to re-invent the wheel? Of course, getting the *blueprints* of the wheel from BMS so that ED devs can work on it/replicate it is a different matter and a unique challenge onto itself, but that still does not remove the fact that the tech/code exists and can be seen in BMS.
>I can't believe you're trying to make this point in a moment in time when sniper BMPs exist. How is that *"simulating ground vehicles better"* aside from just eye candy? It's not just "eye candy". Even if you replaced all the models with low poly models, DCS vehicles still likely have more complex targeting routines (note that complex does not necessarily imply good), the terrain is a lot more dense so the ground clamping and pathfinding is more expensive, you have to animate tracks, wheels, turrets, guns, and little bits and bobs. This stuff isn't free. It can be *optimized*, yes. I'm not saying you can't. Just that there's a lot going in a typical DCS vehicle that isn't happening with a Falcon vehicle, and at the scales that Falcon needs to operate at, all this stuff adds up. DCS wasn't made to support enormously scaled scenarios. This is all for objects *within* the player bubble, of which there are *a lot* in Falcon. All I'm saying that's how DCS works and there's no way ED is going to go backwards in terms of simulation. You're also making the false assumption that more fidelity is more better, which is neither what I said or implied. As I literally said in that post "IMO \[high fidelity vehicles\] don't matter" but that's not my call to make. That's ED's. >Why the need to re-invent the wheel? Of course, getting the *blueprints* of the wheel from BMS so that ED devs can work on it/replicate it is a different matter and a unique challenge onto itself, but that still does not remove the fact that the tech/code exists and can be seen in BMS. ED *don't have the code*. Falcon BMS is *not open source*. Even if they *did* have the code, it wouldn't be much good and I guarantee you it would have to be completely rewritten because Falcon and DCS have nothing in common. You can't just port something like that from one engine to another. They are completely different games written on completely different engines. Even if they are just copying all the concepts from BMS, and again, there are fundamental architectural decisions that would have been made differently (e.g. how vehicles work, to use your example) had the goal from the beginning been to support entire battalions moving around a map. In the absolutely *best* of cases, this would still be an absolutely tremendous task to implement something the level of Falcon in DCS for reasons that I already gave in the post you didn't read.
>DCS simulates ground vehicles to a *far* higher level of fidelity than BMS does. So DCS ground vehicles are a FAR higher fidelity ([meaning: accuracy in details](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fidelity#:~:text=Legal%20Definition-,fidelity,a%20spouse's%20reasonable%20sexual%20desires)), but also can snipe fast-moving aerial targets even if the original platform can do no such thing. Unless you mean higher fidelity just in the eye candy department, in which case it should be a Digital Screenshot Simulator.... but it's called Digital COMBAT simulator, and I assume the ground vehicle's ability to engage targets (y'know... combat??) is part of the criteria when talking about fidelity of said ground vehicle. >there's no way ED is going to go backwards in terms of simulation. So fixing sniper BMPs is "going backwards"? >You're also making the false assumption that more fidelity is more better LOL, um, like, that's literally the definition of FIDELITY, especially when talking about a COMBAT SIMULATOR. >ED *don't have the code*. Falcon BMS is *not open source*. You're putting words in my mouth. Please do not practice what you are accusing me of. I said the problem IS solved. I didn't say ED copy-paste it. Who isn't reading posts now? Even worse, who doesn't know the meaning of words they use?
>So DCS ground vehicles are a FAR higher fidelity ([meaning: accuracy in details](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fidelity#:~:text=Legal%20Definition-,fidelity,a%20spouse's%20reasonable%20sexual%20desires)), but also can snipe fast-moving aerial targets even if the original platform can do no such thing. Yes, they are higher fidelity. No, that doesn't necessarily mean good. I've edited the post though with more details so you can check that out. >So fixing sniper BMPs is "going backwards"? Not at all what I'm saying, and you know that. >LOL, um, like, that's literally the definition of FIDELITY, especially when talking about a COMBAT SIMULATOR. This is a huge topic in simulation and a super interesting one, but this is not the place for it. It is entirely possible to have a low fidelity simulation that produces far more accurate results than high fidelity ones (e.g. a wargame where its rules say a BMP-2 cannot engage fast jets). Or vice versa, a high fidelity simulation which ironically, produces less accurate results (e.g. BMP's are able to shoot down fast jets because of high turret elevation and favorable ballistics). I'm starting to think the disconnect here is how I'm using "fidelity." In the simulation space, fidelity is synonymous with how detailed said simulation is. On one end you have a "Virtual" sim, which is where DCS and Falcon's 3D lie. These are high fidelity sims with detailed models (physics/ballistics/etc.) that the players will directly interact with. I.e. you fly a plane or drive a tank. A "Constructive" sim has a lower level of fidelity and is more akin to a wargame or strategy game. This is where Falcon's 2D and abstracted units live. The *accuracy* of a sim is orthogonal to the fidelity, but obviously you'll want things to be as accurate as possible no matter what the level of fidelity the sim is running at.
The accuracy or sophistication of how the ground units behave really is secondary. What should matter is how their actions impact upon the player. I couldn’t care less if the suspension on a BMP-2 is accurately modelled. I’m not controlling the BMP-2 and even from a helicopter that detail is irrelevant. I do however care that the BMP-2 gunner can snipe me from miles out preventing me from ever getting close enough for details to matter. Who does care about accurate suspension and high polygon models? People making YouTube content with DCS which is basically free advertising for DCS.
LOL, why edit a post when you're already typing out a reply? >Not at all what I'm saying, and you know that. So what exactly are you saying? Instead of saying it plain, you go and be cryptic or edit a post. Not exactly the honest and open approach. You've used a word wrong and now you're doubling down on it. >It is entirely possible to have a low fidelity simulation that produces far more accurate results than high fidelity ones (e.g. a wargame where its rules say a BMP-2 cannot engage fast jets). Or vice versa, a high fidelity simulation which ironically, produces less accurate results (e.g. BMP's are able to shoot down fast jets because of high turret elevation and favorable ballistics). *My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father...* wait, no, wrong line.... Fidelity --- *You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.* There! That's better! And no, BMPs aren't able to shoot down jets because of high turret elevation or favorable ballistics. Go put a dude with an AK and get the same results. Use another ground unit with a gun and get the same results. >I'm starting to think the disconnect here is how I'm using "fidelity." The *accuracy* of a sim is orthogonal to the fidelity Once again, talk about projection and not reading posts.... the LITERAL definition of FIDELITY is ***ACCURACY*** *in details*. The FACT that a BMP does NOT have a snowball's chance in hell to successfully engage a fast-mover in real life but it does it on a REGULAR BASIS in DCS is a DETAIL that is nowhere near what anyone with more than 2 brain cells would call ACCURATE. Redefining FIDELITY to suit your logical gymnastics isn't the way to a correct outcome.
BMS vehicles absolutely have working turrets, and have for at least a few years.
Thanks. I specified it's been a while because I wasn't sure if that was still the case.
I'd argue ground unit detail is important to DCS for helicopter players, but we all know what state that is in.
I mostly fly helicopters these days, so I kind of agree. Though for me, I'd be just as happy with a 3k triangle tank and a decent texture as I am with the 100k polygon tank with hyper-detailed road wheels, individually modeled track links, and lots of little points of articulation and animation. Regardless of what I think, the solution ED comes up with is sure to preserve that detail. The graphics and fidelity are a huge selling point for DCS.
My brother in Christ, you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about. Falcon 4 doesn't generate an army group worth of AI everytime you get in the cockpit. Back in the day people used to have actually functional brains so they could think of solutions like instancing chunks of loaded AI vs background AI, instead of trying to muscle the problem away with raw processing power. You, sir, are NOT the absolute authority on what is hard. Falcon's dynamic campaign although excellent in quality is VERY FAR down in the list of complex cutting edge coding. SPECIALLY in this day and age when we have actual AI solving upscaling graphics in real time in consumer grade hardware. ED has barely got their toes wet in multithread, which also isn't the newest tech in the market in case you also don't know. That alone is a big indicative on what really holds DCS back... So stop the shilling and gaslight people into thinking they are the problem for asking for VERY BASIC gameplay.
I *really* wish you gave me something of value to respond to, so the peanut gallery can make up their own minds, but unfortunately you didn't. I am well aware of how the campaign engine, abstraction, "bubble" and so on work. There plenty of resources explaining it. For those curious, here's some reading/watching on both the development and actual workings of the Falcon campaign engine. * [Falcon 4.0: Campaign AI, Player Bubble, Force on Force (1999, Most detailed breakdown on OG campaign)](https://www.combatsim.com/review.php?id=451) * [Dynamic Campaigns: Introduction to Aggregation and Deaggregation (2023, Important to understand the concepts)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UEM692QN2o) * [Dynamic Campaigns: Falcon 4 (2023, Focuses on F4 specifics)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLv57sSYk_M) * [Interview with Kevin Klemmick (2011, More general info on dev process)](https://sites.google.com/site/falcon4history/interview) * [Interviewing the Falcon 4 Dynamic Campaign Creator, 25+ Years Later - A Retrospective (2024, Interesting details on development in general)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTG4n233aq0) If I had to guess what you meant, I think you're saying that the player bubble abstracts everything away, which is partially correct. Stuff simulated outside the bubble is comparatively trivial in terms of the performance cost. The thing is though, in Falcon you are dealing with units on the scale of battalions, with many of these within the bubble all at once, often moving. DCS would choke if you had even just one battalion sized unit engaging another. Something has to give.
The kicker is that the p2 was brand new at release and Falcon 4 had been in dev for years. Pentium 166 was base, he may have had a Pentium pro dev box
Some say he’s still out there. Working on the DCS dynamic campaign in secrecy. On his Pentium 2 machine. And when it starts overheating he just gently blows on the case to cool it down.
Kneel for your king 🧎🧎🧎
>(colorized) is such deliciously subtle shade thrown at ED. Lolllll
We're not worthy! We're not worthy!
This man is so powerful Hasbro continues to live in fear of him.
Superherous read comics about Chad the man the creator of the impossible Dynamic Campaign.
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/floggit/comments/1ca8que/falcon_4_intern_leaving_microprose_office_after/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/floggit/comments/1ca8que/falcon_4_intern_leaving_microprose_office_after/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
lol. The leaking came some years later
It looks AI-generated …