Discussion about DCS:WW2 goes here.

[Sokol1]

150.000 reached.

 

"It was as though angels were pushing."

 

1lokoS

[Dakpilot]

Comparing two things and making definitive statements about one product not even in alpha and another not yet in beta is rather pointless and ludicrous and almost Evangelical in fervor, It does no good for flightsim reputation as a place populated by wierdo's and argumentative people....but by all means keep it up   it is always entertaining

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Dutch]

Comparing two things and making definitive statements about one product not even in alpha and another not yet in beta is rather pointless and ludicrous and almost Evangelical in fervor, It does no good for flightsim reputation as a place populated by wierdo's and argumentative people....but by all means keep it up   it is always entertaining

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Huh? Who is comparing an Alpha to a Beta and making definitive statements? Royraiden expressed an opinion that he thought the existing DCS cockpits were the best at the moment. Flatspinman asked to see pictures. Smurfy thinks Cliffs' cockpits are the best at the moment. I posted pictures of the DCS Mustang pit as an example of a DCS cockpit as Flatspinman requested.

All healthy stuff, imo.

 

The Alpha shots of the 109 pit look just that. Alpha, with very little detail to make any comparison with anything really.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Dutch

[Dakpilot]

"Trust me they look better than anything on the market or anything that will be on the market in the near future  :)".......

 

"Huh? Who is comparing an Alpha to a Beta and making definitive statements?".......

 

???

 

Cheers Dakpilkot

[ST_ami7b5]

LOL:

 

 

[BMA_West]

The Alpha shots of the 109 pit look just that. Alpha, with very little detail to make any comparison with anything really.

Huh, Alpha? To me that is not even pre Alpha but more like early development. Yo-yo gave also a lot of tabs on the engine of the Jumo-213A for Dora about 2 weeks ago:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=114094

but that is it.

I'say full tilt development.

You want a sample of an end product, see p-51, which time frame of development they use for the others - dixit Ilya.

[Dutch]

Huh, Alpha? To me that is not even pre Alpha but more like early development.

True. I stand corrected.

[FlatSpinMan]

Oh, I thought we were talking about cockpit models (or whatever you call them - like the Stuka pics in the BoS update). Thanks for the pics all.  To be honest, they all look fine and dandy to me - I'd happily take any and all of them.

ami - are those from WT or CoD?

[ST_ami7b5]

...

ami - are those from WT or CoD?

 

From WT.

Posted as a 'proof' nice cockpits do not necessarily make a nice sim

[Shadylurker]

From WT.

Posted as a 'proof' nice cockpits do not necessarily make a nice sim

Ya beat me.  

 

The P51 is a great sim though, IMO  

 

War Thunder not so much.

 

And I'm betting the new il2 will be that perfect middle ground the series has been.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Shadylurker

[ST_ami7b5]

I have a big confidence in BoS and I also have DCS:P-51 and backed DCS:WWII.

 

But these 'cockpit wars' are bit childish. 

[Mogster]

Everyone agrees CloD has amazingly detailed cockpits, pity they didn't finish much else...

 

The early 109 cockpit renders look great, as does the BOS Stuka. Happy days

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Congratulations! All the best for the development process!

[ST_ami7b5]

[LLv44_Mprhead]

It was nice to see how number of backers went up in last few days. It really looked like to me that it would only reach about 1800, so there was about 750 more than I anticipated. And ofc the total amount was rather nice in the end. Depending of how many payments don't go through, it could be as much as 164000. So there is a nice buffer for that 150k and maybe some extra money to start something else... Good day anyway and next year should be exiting

[FlatSpinMan]

Yeah, Luther must be really pleased. Sure, it didn't reach the million dollar mark, but that never seemed a realistic possibilty (did it?), but he knows that he gets another good shot at his dream

That's a lucky guy.

[ST_ami7b5]

Yeah, Luther must be really pleased. Sure, it didn't reach the million dollar mark, but that never seemed a realistic possibilty (did it?), but he knows that he gets another good shot at his dream

That's a lucky guy.

 

Not quite sure...

 

According to former goals he (&ED) certainly hoped for more. 

But the reality is like it is.

He's got a chance (again) and now it's all up to him.

We'll see in 1 year...

 

I cant wait to start testing BoS now!

 

Edit: Amazon says my payment to RRG was succesfully completed.

Fine.

Edited October 5, 2013 by ami7b5

[Dakpilot]

Should be earlier than that  (1 year) about 6-700 people are expecting to participate in alpha testing in Feb 2014

 

Anyway best forget the kickstarter.....it has a green light and this IS his chance to prove a great and finished product can be achieved

 

I wish him and his team all the best over the coming months

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Revvin]

A good result despite some of the vocal naysayers we'll have another WW2 sim to play next year

[ST_ami7b5]

Should be earlier than that  (1 year) about 6-700 people are expecting to participate in alpha testing in Feb 2014

 

Anyway best forget the kickstarter.....it has a green light and this IS his chance to prove a great and finished product can be achieved

 

I wish him and his team all the best over the coming months

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Yes, you're right.

 

Dora, Dora, Dora!

 

I'm in in beta.

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

A good result despite some of the vocal naysayers we'll have another WW2 sim to play next year

 

 

Please, stop it. This is just the type of thing i was talking about.

Stop the sniping, its that sort of post that kicks things off, there is just no need any more.

Edited October 5, 2013 by =BKHZ=Furbs

[LLv44_Mprhead]

Please, stop it. This is just the type of thing i was talking about.

Stop the sniping, its that sort of post that kicks things off, there is just no need any more.

I second that

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

It looks like were going to have 2 great flight sims to play with over the next year, we should all be happy.

 

We need to put all the crap that's happened behind us and move on, if you still feel the need to vent, just do it via PM, its what i do, and not only do you get a better response, it makes the forum better for everyone.

 

Be positive.

Edited October 5, 2013 by =BKHZ=Furbs

[ST_ami7b5]

^^ This!

[Rjel]

Be positive.

Really, that should be the forum motto. After a long day in a frustrating world, it would be nice to come here (any forum) just to relax and share a mutual interest. BUT, can any of us do that???

[DD_bongodriver]

You won't know unless you try I guess....

[Rjel]

You won't know unless you try I guess....

If you meant me then yes I can try. Whether I succeed remains to be seen...

[Feathered_IV]

I'm curious about why the Normandy 44 map was chosen with regard to the planned German aircraft. The Dora didnt go into production until August that year. The 109k was even later (never mind the 262). I'm not sure either of them flew out of French bases either, which makes for an odd take on history. Perhaps an Ardennes map would have been a more sensible choice.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

I'm curious about why the Normandy 44 map was chosen with regard to the planned German aircraft. The Dora didnt go into production until August that year. The 109k was even later (never mind the 262). I'm not sure either of them flew out of French bases either, which makes for an odd take on history. Perhaps an Ardennes map would have been a more sensible choice.

 

True. Maybe we get some explanation about reasoning behind this some day. And hopefully we will get larger map(s) now with help of community effort. Normandy + Southern England + Low Countries + North-West part of Germany should do...

[Bearcat]

Posted on10-2 by Wags @ DCS:

 

 

 

Also today, our official product specifications are as follows:
Minimum system requirements: OS 64-bit Windows Vista, 7 or 8; CPU: Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz; RAM: 4 GB; Free hard disk space: 10 GB; Video: 512 MB RAM card, DirectX 9.0c - compatible; Sound: DirectX 9.0c - compatible; requires internet activation.

Recommended system requirements: OS 64-bit Windows Vista, 7 or 8; CPU: Core i5+; RAM: 8GB; Hard disk space: 10 GB; Video: Shader 3.0 or better; NVIDIA GeForce GTX560 DirectX 9.0c or better; Sound: DirectX 9.0c - compatible; DirectX: 9.0C; requires internet activation.

Of note, we no longer support 32 bit OS systems.

[ST_ami7b5]

Posted on10-2 by Wags @ DCS:

...

 

Wow, I fit in luckily, but I'm afraid many will be shocked...

Edited October 6, 2013 by ami7b5

[FuriousMeow]

Posted on10-2 by Wags @ DCS:

 

Of note, we no longer support 32 bit OS systems.

 

 

Most sensible thing I've seen come out of this whole kickstarter. It's been a long time since dumping 32bit OSes should have occurred. That may actually get me to back it.

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

I agree, its about time.

[Revvin]

I think it's a sensible move, the majority of gamers use a 64 bit OS anyway according to surveys run by Steam.

[SYN_Ricky]

I'm curious about why the Normandy 44 map was chosen with regard to the planned German aircraft. The Dora didnt go into production until August that year. The 109k was even later (never mind the 262). I'm not sure either of them flew out of French bases either, which makes for an odd take on history. Perhaps an Ardennes map would have been a more sensible choice.

This has been my first thought too when they announced the planeset and map. The only reason I see is that they be reusing all the data they collected for the CloD map...but sure it will prevent flying historical scenarios for the German planes until a relevant map is produced. Still Normandy will be fine for Spits IX, P-47s and Mustangs.

[DD_bongodriver]

What's the difference? FW190 in Stalingrad.........Me262 in Normandy? seems to me odd choices are made across the board.

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

What's the difference? FW190 in Stalingrad.........Me262 in Normandy? seems to me odd choices are made across the board.

 

I don't see it as a big problem for either sim, especially for the first release, they need to build a player base first. and sometimes they have to make slightly squinty eyed choices to get people through the door.

 

Plus scenario and mission makers can pretend its any date they want, as long as the single player campaigns follow the correct plane set for the time, i don't think its really a issue.

 

Bums on seats, i think is the phrase.

[DD_bongodriver]

Agreed...

[ram0506]

Agree with Furbs.

I also would have voted for the Me262 for BoS!

[Skoshi_Tiger]

This has been my first thought too when they announced the planeset and map. The only reason I see is that they be reusing all the data they collected for the CloD map...but sure it will prevent flying historical scenarios for the German planes until a relevant map is produced. Still Normandy will be fine for Spits IX, P-47s and Mustangs.

I don't think any of the plane set used in COD are available in DCS:WWII. Aircraft data for the marks included in WWII will be very different. The modeling of aircraft systems is significantly different and even the 3d Models have a different LoD and damage models and anyway the IP for COD is owned by 1C and I doubt they would share.

 

I doubt very little, if nothing at all, will come from CoD