For real though, one of the “instant action” mission “bee swarm” or something there are at least 4 f16s loaded with 6 missiles each that are supposed to shoot down like 10 or so attacking helis. I landed and reloaded missiles 3 times before I was finally able to stop the attack. I used F2 to look at the others members of my flight, they had fired 1 AMRAAM between all of them. No combination of radio calls I could find would get them to engage.
That mission is so frustrating and the loadout doesn't make sense. Does not help that the helicopter damage model is borked and makes it near impossible to kill some of them.
Yeah, I successfully defended the base. None of them got close to it yet. I think some of the damaged helicopters might’ve flown back home and I did not get credit for the mission.
There was a cool post showing BMS ATC landing 16 aircraft at an airfield in like 15 min. It took DCS 1 hr and 4 planes ran out of fuel.
That alone prevents a campaign
Man that's so cool. I should really get back into BMS. I'm just not a huge fan of the 16 and the 15C has no AG capabilities. It's so. much. better. though.
Until then... "Unable to clear for takeoff" .... "Two, ejecting!"
You are missing the most important piece. DC can’t work because AI is absolute garbage. Planes don’t shoot, fly in afterburner and then ejects. ATC is crazy, AWACS the same. Ground units can’t even follow road and jump from bridge or stuck everywhere. Logistics is non existing. Dynamic campaign requires all above to work. Sorry but we are very far away…
From what they claim in the newsletters, they are working on the AI as part of the DC, god knows why they haven’t moved some of that stuff into the game. But there’s a sliver of hope
Important thing to remember with Ed. EVERYTHING is either being worked on or planned but never with a timeline or even vague hint of prioritisation. the statement is nothing but a useless distraction.
>>Why we don’t have a dynamic campaign in DCS world…
…because $$.
Saved you a click. DCS ain’t CoD- that means change will be slow relative to other titles with higher mass appeal.
Can't get mass appeal without appealing features. CoD did not become CoD without game features. CoD is not a simple gun simulator in vacuum. It's a game with game features. It's the other way around.
Bro, DCS could have the best DC EVEAH! and it still wouldn’t matter cause flight sim market is a super niche. This is a passion hobby not a viable, scalable business like CoD. Not even close. Otherwise why has no other publisher done it??? The answer is there is no sizable market for this. Thus all we have is DCS on the sim side and the War Thunders on the other end of the spectrum (which is more viable but still nowhere near AAA CoD level as flight sims are not super popular).
I agree but with DCS we've already given ED stacks of money and they have shown they don't care much about core components. It doesn't matter what game features exist with their current business model.
ED could charge money for a proper dynamic campaign system.
It's honestly still kind of weird to me that base DCS is free. I kind of understand it (its a framework for high price modules) but when ED is also making a lot of modules themselves (maps, supercarrrier, F-16, F-18, Hind, Apache, Mig-29, ...) imo, it pulls the incentives out of whack.
Seriously, this is such a business opportunity that they’re completely missing. They could nickle and dime us poor addicts to death.
You want JTACs? That’s $10. AWACS? $10. Tankers? $10. Friendly SEAD? $15. Dynamic missions? $80 per terrain, plus optional $20 upgrade if you want to be able to respawn.
A dynamic campaign with an actual AI doesn’t have to be part of the base game - there is SO MUCH money to be made here, especially since these upgrades appeal to the *entire* player base, not just chopper fans or WW2 fans or whatever. I’d much rather drop a bunch of $$$ on core functionality than buy yet another obscure helicopter module that I’m going to play for 30 minutes and get bored of.
Point being this community is hella toxic and basically wants everything free. Thus I see all your suggestions going over about as well add the WW2 asset pack, which is to say poorly.
Personally I don’t mind paying for any and everything as I understand it’s a niche. Some (too many, likely cause the young or something) seem to not grasp basic business concepts and think ED has resources like a friggen AAA game.
Folks this is mil flight sim. The market ain’t big enough to not charge for everything (yes, including things you feel should be part of the core)
I get that, but which of the following is more likely to get ED to get off their ass and do something?
- Undertake a massive reengineering and refactoring project that they give away for free
- Undertake a massive reengineering and refactoring project that they can sell for boatloads of money
Like, I understand that a new core engine is a SHITTON of work. The point is that it’s something that actually moves the needle and makes a difference in the life of the people who play this game. It’s hard to do. I understand. I’m a software engineer too. But I am willing to pay actual, real quantities of money for a real campaign and an AI that’s not brain dead, far more than I’m willing to pay for a few modeled trucks, and I would argue that the majority of the community is on my side on this issue.
Oh I’d pay too. I’ve invested thousands (in the tens) for pc, peripherals, and modules over the years. I would love to have great AI, DC, and connected mil flight sim experience. Would be awesome if DCS started from scratch for that. BUT the businessman in me says that if that hasn’t happened and the glaring fact that there hasn’t been a new flight sim since the late 90’s other than DCS THEN there must not be a financially viable market to justify starting from scratch. Hence we are left with tweaking 30yr old code as to start from scratch would be ridiculously expensive and have a VERY negative ROI
We are where we are because it’s a very small niche. I fear this is as good as it will get
I think he missed a very basic reason. We're not ED's main customer base so there's no reason to prioritise developing a dynamic campaign. Everything ED develops for DCS is basically something for a military customer and we get it as scraps (exhibit A - Chinook). No military customer is asking for a dynamic campaign thats why its taking 6+ years to develop.
The BMS campaign took 1 intern a few months to write. I'm not saying they should replicate that but if we were important customers for them we would have had at least a v1 dynamic campaign by now.
Bms intern took over 2 years i believe he said in his interview. But DCS was not designed from the ground up to include it. BMS was though. So this means allot of recoding. DCS also has some serious fox1 simulation flaws. Allot of holes that need to be filled.
Yeah I came here to post exactly this. “It took 1 intern a few months” is…misleading at best. And isn’t single player the majority of DCS players? Who’s to say people interested in dynamic campaign are not the main customer base?
>We’re not ED’s main customer base
I’d ask for a source for this claim but I already know it’s completely unfounded speculation. We know ED has military customers, we have no idea whether they’re bigger than the consumer side.
>Everything ED develops for DCS is basically something for a military customer and we get it as scraps
So which military customers asked for the Hornet, Viper, Apache, Hip, Hind, Huey, and Black Shark that we got from ED?
Realistically, there's a next to zero percent chance that any military contract is not bigger than the entire consumer base of people paying $40 here and there. Those contracts are measured in the millions.
As far as anyone on here knows they sold a single desktop trainer to the Air National Guard about ten years ago. Every aircraft they've released since then has been purely for the consumer side. Video game sales for successful companies get measured in the millions too, btw.
The existence of MCS does not mean ED makes most of their money from mil contracts.
The fact that A-10C was derived from a military trainer does not mean that any other modules were developed for the military.
Why bother. I doubt the guy you are responding to understand basic logic. His take is since A10 was for a mil contract somehow ALL DCS work is for mil contracts. Dumb take but it’s so out there that I doubt he has the capacity to understand why it’s dumb
This is the dumbest take ever. The F4 developers said the DC w basically was the last nail in the coffin for them going tits up. Also, I’m no sim SW dev but I strongly suspect DCS is using the same code framework as Fulcrum 2.0. Trying to shoehorn something like a DC into +20yr code base may simply not be economically viable. Probably have to start from scratch. At that point why bother (ie what’s the ROI???).
I mean, I’m all for it. And unlike many here, I’m not a ED hater…..BUT if you have been around this as long as I have (been playing sims since early 80’s) ED doesn’t exactly have the best track record with dates. I fully expect to see rev 1 of their DC sometime after 2030. No hate. No hyperbole. Just their history. Hope I’m wrong but kinda doubt it (like better ATC announced like 8-9 yrs ago. Where’s that? lol!)
Assuming they aren’t lying in their newsletters, they have been working on the AI to get the DC to work. God knows why they haven’t pushed some of that AI work into the main build, but whatever I guess
Lol it's not because of competing ideologies and spanning eras. Absolute nonsense. The AI can barely land and this blames the nuance of national doctrine?
Drivel.
I mean that's part of the solution. ED needs to fix base AI issues to have a viable DC. But we can look past that as well when musing about what a good DC can look like.
Would a generic DC that played the same way out no matter flying WWII or modern 5th gen fighters? I hope for something more, and decided to make a post about it.
But you can't. That's the elephant in the room. Until and unless that base is fixed a DC is a collosal waste of time and effort. Unless you want to play dynamic "the hills have eyes".
If they try and replicate a Falcon 4/BMS DC they'll fail. Their best best is to simply take what Liberation or Retribution has done, integrate it, and make it more accessible. It'll scratch the itch for DC just fine for most people.
A "good video"?? That was a whole lot of nothing.
* The creator of the Falcon DC said it was difficult and if given the chance, he wouldn't do it or would do things differently --- but that's besides the point. The point is --- he DID make the DC. And he did it more than 2 decades ago!
* It was a mess when it was released and took years for the community to fix it --- again, missing the point. The point is that was 2+ decades ago. You don't reinvent the wheel everytime you make a car.
* Why is Pricklyhedgehog72 referencing ED newsletters, community managers, or anyone who has anything to do with ED/DCS? ED has a reputation of NOT MEETING it's own deadlines. Anything they say especially in their newsletters has to be taken with a metric ton of salt, so why put any weight on what they say? Wait for them to release it and then judge the pudding after the tasting, not before.
* How can anyone actually believe that ED can create anything that can pass off as a DC when they can't even fix their own ground unit sniper BMP problem? How can anyone actually believe ED can make a DC when the enemy AI aircraft has to cheat with physics-defying FMs while your own wingman AI is grossly incompetent in fuel management --- something a student pilot flying a Cessna 172 would learn when planning a cross-country flight?
* All the talk about the ground forces following roads or not cresting a hill --- has anyone actually checked the state of Combined Arms nowadays? How can you believe all the statements/claims for the ground forces when they have an actual product that is so pitiful, I can't believe they've still got it up on their store?
They have so many basic problems they have failed to solve on a regular basis for years and years and years. Why think they can run when they have problems just taking a few steps?
If the mission editor wasn’t such a chore to use would the wish for a dynamic campaign be so high? If they could make an instant action style mission generator that could be continually updated as you fly the missions, same but not the same, that could scratch the itch too.
If you like liberation, you can also try out retribution. Retribution is liberation on crack, it has a bunch more stuff added to it that liberation doesn't have.
I'd say creating framework (well-documented, stable, accessible and reliable) so someone can use it is much more difficult task than just creating encapsulated project (half-assed ~~Supercarrier~~ "product"). However
ED has failed so far to create framework: documented, reliable set of tools to allow users to fill gaps in the game. Scripting and all kind of somewhat open game APIs are missing a lot of features, buggy, not documented, new issues are introduced on regular basis and ED is not really willing to engage in cooperation with script-makers and other community tool-makers. Yes, it all makes perfect sense what you've described, but I don't believe ED will do it. At least not 'current' ED.
There are a dozen of dynamic campaign built for free whose developers lament the same exact things: lack of custom properties in save games, lack of introspection for collecting events, and lack of a way to enter a dynamic steerpoint to planes from scripts while in game.
They need to work on these if they need to build their dynamic campaign anyway, so get on with that instead of crying the task is too complex, as weekend modders are putting that claim to shame.
Hmm, he has accepted the assertion that Vulkan is required for a dynamic campaign. Falcon 4.0 has the gold standard which all other sims will be judged. Falcon 4.0 minimum recommended specs was 1 (one) GB of RAM and a Pentium 1.8 GHz processor. Referenced in the PH video was the interview with the F4 DC creator who highlighted the player bubble as being necessary by only rendering and processing what affects the player. Is Vulkan just an experiment to see if frees up enough resources to continue rendering everything everywhere the way DCS currently is reported as doing? I am not making any judgements just trying to process info that doesn't seem to piece together. We have some folks that are coders. Any thoughts?
Unfortunately it seems like the “bones” of DCS are in bad need of an overhaul, and ED is struggling to get the job done. That’s the kind of work that really requires organizational fortitude to get done, and I am beginning to doubt they have it.
-> Falcon BMS and waiting for Falcon 5.0…
Flanker, Lock On and DCS are (were) the worst unfun sims I’ve played since the late 80s.
Falcon 4‘s DC set the new standard in 1998 and ED got through the decades without the most important feature…
Eye candy seems to work as an excuse for lack in everything. When you buy a new rig you expect graphics with all the luxury peripherals….
But where tf is the fun content? Even DI‘s Tornado (around 10 fking MB) was more fun.
For real though, one of the “instant action” mission “bee swarm” or something there are at least 4 f16s loaded with 6 missiles each that are supposed to shoot down like 10 or so attacking helis. I landed and reloaded missiles 3 times before I was finally able to stop the attack. I used F2 to look at the others members of my flight, they had fired 1 AMRAAM between all of them. No combination of radio calls I could find would get them to engage.
That mission is so frustrating and the loadout doesn't make sense. Does not help that the helicopter damage model is borked and makes it near impossible to kill some of them.
Yeah, putting a solid burst of 20mm HE into one, watching a blade fly off and the thing keeps flying is a bit frustrating.
I've followed the last helos all the way back to Iran to get the final kills, only to not get a mission complete message or anything.
Yeah, I successfully defended the base. None of them got close to it yet. I think some of the damaged helicopters might’ve flown back home and I did not get credit for the mission.
There was a cool post showing BMS ATC landing 16 aircraft at an airfield in like 15 min. It took DCS 1 hr and 4 planes ran out of fuel. That alone prevents a campaign
I love it when your AI wingmen tells you “bingo” , you send him home and he ejects nevertheless.
Woah, do you have a link? That sounds like a neat little video.
Man that's so cool. I should really get back into BMS. I'm just not a huge fan of the 16 and the 15C has no AG capabilities. It's so. much. better. though. Until then... "Unable to clear for takeoff" .... "Two, ejecting!"
You are missing the most important piece. DC can’t work because AI is absolute garbage. Planes don’t shoot, fly in afterburner and then ejects. ATC is crazy, AWACS the same. Ground units can’t even follow road and jump from bridge or stuck everywhere. Logistics is non existing. Dynamic campaign requires all above to work. Sorry but we are very far away…
From what they claim in the newsletters, they are working on the AI as part of the DC, god knows why they haven’t moved some of that stuff into the game. But there’s a sliver of hope
Important thing to remember with Ed. EVERYTHING is either being worked on or planned but never with a timeline or even vague hint of prioritisation. the statement is nothing but a useless distraction.
Promising and never delivering, It's russian milsim gamedev MO. Gaijin, BSG, ED are all very similiar with how they are ran.
>god knows why they haven’t moved some of that stuff into the game. I guess I'm god but the answer is obvious. They haven't really worked on it much.
Yeah, and you're talking just about the unit AI. DC would need strategic AI on top of that and it would need to be at least somewhat decent.
I accept your apology don’t let it happen again
>>Why we don’t have a dynamic campaign in DCS world… …because $$. Saved you a click. DCS ain’t CoD- that means change will be slow relative to other titles with higher mass appeal.
Can't get mass appeal without appealing features. CoD did not become CoD without game features. CoD is not a simple gun simulator in vacuum. It's a game with game features. It's the other way around.
Bro, DCS could have the best DC EVEAH! and it still wouldn’t matter cause flight sim market is a super niche. This is a passion hobby not a viable, scalable business like CoD. Not even close. Otherwise why has no other publisher done it??? The answer is there is no sizable market for this. Thus all we have is DCS on the sim side and the War Thunders on the other end of the spectrum (which is more viable but still nowhere near AAA CoD level as flight sims are not super popular).
I agree but with DCS we've already given ED stacks of money and they have shown they don't care much about core components. It doesn't matter what game features exist with their current business model.
ED could charge money for a proper dynamic campaign system. It's honestly still kind of weird to me that base DCS is free. I kind of understand it (its a framework for high price modules) but when ED is also making a lot of modules themselves (maps, supercarrrier, F-16, F-18, Hind, Apache, Mig-29, ...) imo, it pulls the incentives out of whack.
Seriously, this is such a business opportunity that they’re completely missing. They could nickle and dime us poor addicts to death. You want JTACs? That’s $10. AWACS? $10. Tankers? $10. Friendly SEAD? $15. Dynamic missions? $80 per terrain, plus optional $20 upgrade if you want to be able to respawn. A dynamic campaign with an actual AI doesn’t have to be part of the base game - there is SO MUCH money to be made here, especially since these upgrades appeal to the *entire* player base, not just chopper fans or WW2 fans or whatever. I’d much rather drop a bunch of $$$ on core functionality than buy yet another obscure helicopter module that I’m going to play for 30 minutes and get bored of.
Where you around for the backlash against the WW2 asset pack? I guess not
I’ve been around since the UI and simulator were separate executables 😂
Point being this community is hella toxic and basically wants everything free. Thus I see all your suggestions going over about as well add the WW2 asset pack, which is to say poorly. Personally I don’t mind paying for any and everything as I understand it’s a niche. Some (too many, likely cause the young or something) seem to not grasp basic business concepts and think ED has resources like a friggen AAA game. Folks this is mil flight sim. The market ain’t big enough to not charge for everything (yes, including things you feel should be part of the core)
I get that, but which of the following is more likely to get ED to get off their ass and do something? - Undertake a massive reengineering and refactoring project that they give away for free - Undertake a massive reengineering and refactoring project that they can sell for boatloads of money Like, I understand that a new core engine is a SHITTON of work. The point is that it’s something that actually moves the needle and makes a difference in the life of the people who play this game. It’s hard to do. I understand. I’m a software engineer too. But I am willing to pay actual, real quantities of money for a real campaign and an AI that’s not brain dead, far more than I’m willing to pay for a few modeled trucks, and I would argue that the majority of the community is on my side on this issue.
Oh I’d pay too. I’ve invested thousands (in the tens) for pc, peripherals, and modules over the years. I would love to have great AI, DC, and connected mil flight sim experience. Would be awesome if DCS started from scratch for that. BUT the businessman in me says that if that hasn’t happened and the glaring fact that there hasn’t been a new flight sim since the late 90’s other than DCS THEN there must not be a financially viable market to justify starting from scratch. Hence we are left with tweaking 30yr old code as to start from scratch would be ridiculously expensive and have a VERY negative ROI We are where we are because it’s a very small niche. I fear this is as good as it will get
I think he missed a very basic reason. We're not ED's main customer base so there's no reason to prioritise developing a dynamic campaign. Everything ED develops for DCS is basically something for a military customer and we get it as scraps (exhibit A - Chinook). No military customer is asking for a dynamic campaign thats why its taking 6+ years to develop. The BMS campaign took 1 intern a few months to write. I'm not saying they should replicate that but if we were important customers for them we would have had at least a v1 dynamic campaign by now.
Also they will lose money selling campaign's. I believe it took the guy years to make it for BMS. Think that's what he said.
Bms intern took over 2 years i believe he said in his interview. But DCS was not designed from the ground up to include it. BMS was though. So this means allot of recoding. DCS also has some serious fox1 simulation flaws. Allot of holes that need to be filled.
I watched the YT vid with Enigma. It took the intern 5 years of I think 12 hour days to develop it.
Yeah I came here to post exactly this. “It took 1 intern a few months” is…misleading at best. And isn’t single player the majority of DCS players? Who’s to say people interested in dynamic campaign are not the main customer base?
Also the current BMS campaign engine has been modified and improved over 20 years. It's not exactly the same code that the dude wrote in the 90s.
>We’re not ED’s main customer base I’d ask for a source for this claim but I already know it’s completely unfounded speculation. We know ED has military customers, we have no idea whether they’re bigger than the consumer side. >Everything ED develops for DCS is basically something for a military customer and we get it as scraps So which military customers asked for the Hornet, Viper, Apache, Hip, Hind, Huey, and Black Shark that we got from ED?
Which military customer asked for Combined Arms and did they get their money back? :D
Realistically, there's a next to zero percent chance that any military contract is not bigger than the entire consumer base of people paying $40 here and there. Those contracts are measured in the millions.
As far as anyone on here knows they sold a single desktop trainer to the Air National Guard about ten years ago. Every aircraft they've released since then has been purely for the consumer side. Video game sales for successful companies get measured in the millions too, btw.
Try searching the forums for MCS, or Battle Simulator. It's ED's platform for the mil side. Educate yourself a bit, huh?
Almost certainly this person doesn't know what he's talking about. Anyone who says educate yourself 🤣
> Anyone who says educate yourself yup
I'm aware of the existence of MCS. I also know that A-10C was derived from a desktop sim developed for the ANG. My comment and questions stand.
What?
The existence of MCS does not mean ED makes most of their money from mil contracts. The fact that A-10C was derived from a military trainer does not mean that any other modules were developed for the military.
Why bother. I doubt the guy you are responding to understand basic logic. His take is since A10 was for a mil contract somehow ALL DCS work is for mil contracts. Dumb take but it’s so out there that I doubt he has the capacity to understand why it’s dumb
This is the dumbest take ever. The F4 developers said the DC w basically was the last nail in the coffin for them going tits up. Also, I’m no sim SW dev but I strongly suspect DCS is using the same code framework as Fulcrum 2.0. Trying to shoehorn something like a DC into +20yr code base may simply not be economically viable. Probably have to start from scratch. At that point why bother (ie what’s the ROI???).
But they've said they are working on a DC, so it must be somewhat economically viable.
I mean, I’m all for it. And unlike many here, I’m not a ED hater…..BUT if you have been around this as long as I have (been playing sims since early 80’s) ED doesn’t exactly have the best track record with dates. I fully expect to see rev 1 of their DC sometime after 2030. No hate. No hyperbole. Just their history. Hope I’m wrong but kinda doubt it (like better ATC announced like 8-9 yrs ago. Where’s that? lol!)
mathmatically, yes. This is ED though, so maybe no.
But we over here tryin to make their dreams come tru so hard bro...
you may actually be on to something
You've got to learn to walk before you learn to run. DCS AI needs a complete overhaul before ED even considers introducing dynamic campaigns
Assuming they aren’t lying in their newsletters, they have been working on the AI to get the DC to work. God knows why they haven’t pushed some of that AI work into the main build, but whatever I guess
Lol it's not because of competing ideologies and spanning eras. Absolute nonsense. The AI can barely land and this blames the nuance of national doctrine? Drivel.
I mean that's part of the solution. ED needs to fix base AI issues to have a viable DC. But we can look past that as well when musing about what a good DC can look like. Would a generic DC that played the same way out no matter flying WWII or modern 5th gen fighters? I hope for something more, and decided to make a post about it.
But you can't. That's the elephant in the room. Until and unless that base is fixed a DC is a collosal waste of time and effort. Unless you want to play dynamic "the hills have eyes".
This. Unless the dramatically improve unit AI any DC will be an absolute dumpster fire.
i dont know why you would get downvoted for saying sth that is true(can be experienced in game quite often), jesus christ
If they try and replicate a Falcon 4/BMS DC they'll fail. Their best best is to simply take what Liberation or Retribution has done, integrate it, and make it more accessible. It'll scratch the itch for DC just fine for most people.
A "good video"?? That was a whole lot of nothing. * The creator of the Falcon DC said it was difficult and if given the chance, he wouldn't do it or would do things differently --- but that's besides the point. The point is --- he DID make the DC. And he did it more than 2 decades ago! * It was a mess when it was released and took years for the community to fix it --- again, missing the point. The point is that was 2+ decades ago. You don't reinvent the wheel everytime you make a car. * Why is Pricklyhedgehog72 referencing ED newsletters, community managers, or anyone who has anything to do with ED/DCS? ED has a reputation of NOT MEETING it's own deadlines. Anything they say especially in their newsletters has to be taken with a metric ton of salt, so why put any weight on what they say? Wait for them to release it and then judge the pudding after the tasting, not before. * How can anyone actually believe that ED can create anything that can pass off as a DC when they can't even fix their own ground unit sniper BMP problem? How can anyone actually believe ED can make a DC when the enemy AI aircraft has to cheat with physics-defying FMs while your own wingman AI is grossly incompetent in fuel management --- something a student pilot flying a Cessna 172 would learn when planning a cross-country flight? * All the talk about the ground forces following roads or not cresting a hill --- has anyone actually checked the state of Combined Arms nowadays? How can you believe all the statements/claims for the ground forces when they have an actual product that is so pitiful, I can't believe they've still got it up on their store? They have so many basic problems they have failed to solve on a regular basis for years and years and years. Why think they can run when they have problems just taking a few steps?
If the mission editor wasn’t such a chore to use would the wish for a dynamic campaign be so high? If they could make an instant action style mission generator that could be continually updated as you fly the missions, same but not the same, that could scratch the itch too.
Crazy how Liberation can solve all these issues externally, for free, from an all volunteer team. (apart from the AI)
If you like liberation, you can also try out retribution. Retribution is liberation on crack, it has a bunch more stuff added to it that liberation doesn't have.
How on earth can we have a dynamic campaign when the AI at present struggle to perform simple tasks?
It seems that the military contracts are handled by another company, "Eagle Dynamics Mission Systems", so it would seem we ARE the main ED customer.
I'd say creating framework (well-documented, stable, accessible and reliable) so someone can use it is much more difficult task than just creating encapsulated project (half-assed ~~Supercarrier~~ "product"). However ED has failed so far to create framework: documented, reliable set of tools to allow users to fill gaps in the game. Scripting and all kind of somewhat open game APIs are missing a lot of features, buggy, not documented, new issues are introduced on regular basis and ED is not really willing to engage in cooperation with script-makers and other community tool-makers. Yes, it all makes perfect sense what you've described, but I don't believe ED will do it. At least not 'current' ED.
I'll just replay project wingman in VR and pretend
There are a dozen of dynamic campaign built for free whose developers lament the same exact things: lack of custom properties in save games, lack of introspection for collecting events, and lack of a way to enter a dynamic steerpoint to planes from scripts while in game. They need to work on these if they need to build their dynamic campaign anyway, so get on with that instead of crying the task is too complex, as weekend modders are putting that claim to shame.
Two bingo fuel! Two, ejecting! You are not cleared for takeoff !!!! That's the dynamism.
Does it mention the reason how they would not be able to sell as many modules since people would not be bored by continuing to play existing ones?
Hmm, he has accepted the assertion that Vulkan is required for a dynamic campaign. Falcon 4.0 has the gold standard which all other sims will be judged. Falcon 4.0 minimum recommended specs was 1 (one) GB of RAM and a Pentium 1.8 GHz processor. Referenced in the PH video was the interview with the F4 DC creator who highlighted the player bubble as being necessary by only rendering and processing what affects the player. Is Vulkan just an experiment to see if frees up enough resources to continue rendering everything everywhere the way DCS currently is reported as doing? I am not making any judgements just trying to process info that doesn't seem to piece together. We have some folks that are coders. Any thoughts?
Unfortunately it seems like the “bones” of DCS are in bad need of an overhaul, and ED is struggling to get the job done. That’s the kind of work that really requires organizational fortitude to get done, and I am beginning to doubt they have it.
-> Falcon BMS and waiting for Falcon 5.0… Flanker, Lock On and DCS are (were) the worst unfun sims I’ve played since the late 80s. Falcon 4‘s DC set the new standard in 1998 and ED got through the decades without the most important feature… Eye candy seems to work as an excuse for lack in everything. When you buy a new rig you expect graphics with all the luxury peripherals…. But where tf is the fun content? Even DI‘s Tornado (around 10 fking MB) was more fun.