gavagai Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 I'd like to try and share a few thoughts regarding this project. Personally, I love ED's Mustang, and I guess that we could all agree that if considered on its own merit - the finely detailed simulation of a single aircraft - it is truly outstanding. But it lacks its own proper scenario, and here's where DCS: WWII comes in, right? But, and here's my perplexity, why didn't they just try to expand on the Mustang module itself, making the P-51 alone the core of a new one? Falcon comes to my mind here, to make things more clear. Why not creating a solid historically accurate - dynamic, perhaps - scenario and campaign engine, just for the Mustang? I do not have any kind of deep knowledge regarding air operations in the 1944 Europe theater, but wouldn't it be an enough rich one, even for a single aircraft? Why is the assumed quality level being brought to the number of aircraft being simulated (and here RRG claims that they will all be P-51 level, and I don't understand how that is truly believable) rather than their own historical context? I love the Falcon 4 campaign. However, its big limitation is that for cooperative/multiplayer play, there is only one real flyable aircraft. The modders at BMS have made the other aircraft flyable, and even made some pits for them, but they all feel like place-holders without a good FM or 6-dof cockpit. The Mirage 2000 might be an exception, but that's not even an adversary for the F-16. Otherwise, I agree with you. A real campaign and theater like Falcon 4 would be amazing for a WW2 sim. The trend in the industry is toward multiplayer furballs with cooperative play as an afterthought, and that is wrong in my opinion. Nothing has ever come close to the Falcon 4 campaign, and no one has even attempted to match it.
Emgy Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 Falcon comes to my mind here, to make things more clear. Why not creating a solid historically accurate - dynamic, perhaps - scenario and campaign engine, just for the Mustang? I agree personally, but would there be enough buyers for a hardcore, single-player focused WWII flightsim, with just one flyable? About the quality of the other planes: Yo-Yo in ED (who engineered the P-51D) is also making/overseeing the Spitfire. So there is reason to be optimistic.
Tycoon Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 I'd like to try and share a few thoughts regarding this project. Personally, I love ED's Mustang, and I guess that we could all agree that if considered on its own merit - the finely detailed simulation of a single aircraft - it is truly outstanding. But it lacks its own proper scenario, and here's where DCS: WWII comes in, right? But, and here's my perplexity, why didn't they just try to expand on the Mustang module itself, making the P-51 alone the core of a new one? Falcon comes to my mind here, to make things more clear. Why not creating a solid historically accurate - dynamic, perhaps - scenario and campaign engine, just for the Mustang? I do not have any kind of deep knowledge regarding air operations in the 1944 Europe theater, but wouldn't it be an enough rich one, even for a single aircraft? Why is the assumed quality level being brought to the number of aircraft being simulated (and here RRG claims that they will all be P-51 level, and I don't understand how that is truly believable) rather than their own historical context? Well you have to remember that the current DCS P-51 is flying on the same map as all the other DCS stuff,- the boring and ugly Black Sea map. In order to make a campaign you have to have a correct map, and since the main draw to DCS anyway is system simulation,(not period immersion) the devs didn't have to include it(and financially probably couldn't). But from here on I think the development plan they have is a good one.
ATAG_Bliss Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Not to mention they are releasing a map SDK so the community can build any maps they want and get involved. That's the big + right there. 2
DB605 Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 About the quality of the other planes: Yo-Yo in ED (who engineered the P-51D) is also making/overseeing the Spitfire. So there is reason to be optimistic. And FW 190 D9 and helping/advising with the rest of planes too, so i don't have doubt they will be on par with DCS Stang. And that is actually best part of the project, if succesful it will be the best ww2 flightsim in many ways. It would never be that with only one flyable aircraft. 1
gavagai Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Not to mention they are releasing a map SDK so the community can build any maps they want and get involved. That's the big + right there. Bliss, have you ever played through a Falcon 4 campaign? At any point you can turn your single-player campaign into a multiplayer coop. It's a 24:7 war that is orchestrated by the application. No need for humans to spend many hours designing missions and placing ground units, designing the order of battle, etc.
Picchio Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 It would never be that with only one flyable aircraft. Please elaborate, why not?
DB605 Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Please elaborate, why not? Because it would be best ww2 Mustang simulator, not best ww2 combat/flightsimulator Personally i'm much more interested about Luftwaffe fighters so i'm very glad they decided to do it this way.
siipperi Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Bliss, have you ever played through a Falcon 4 campaign? At any point you can turn your single-player campaign into a multiplayer coop. It's a 24:7 war that is orchestrated by the application. No need for humans to spend many hours designing missions and placing ground units, designing the order of battle, etc. Dynamic campaign would be absolutely game killer (to competitors) would really see that feature in the game. However I think there is no plans to make it with current stage of the game I don't think it's even possible to handle that kind of load which dynamic campaign would do. It would require some kind of instancing where game compleatly ignores everything that is too far away from player. Currently 100km drawing distance with thousands of AI tanks/infantry would just kill PCs, atleast in the multiplayer. EDGE won't solve this but they need totally new "module" to process this kind of load. I don't see point having dynamic campaign with some hundred troops across the huge map. But as said +1 to dynamic campaign.
gavagai Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Dynamic campaign would be absolutely game killer (to competitors) would really see that feature in the game. However I think there is no plans to make it with current stage of the game I don't think it's even possible to handle that kind of load which dynamic campaign would do. It would require some kind of instancing where game compleatly ignores everything that is too far away from player. Currently 100km drawing distance with thousands of AI tanks/infantry would just kill PCs, atleast in the multiplayer. EDGE won't solve this but they need totally new "module" to process this kind of load. I don't see point having dynamic campaign with some hundred troops across the huge map. But as said +1 to dynamic campaign. Falcon 4 does not have a dynamic campaign. It is a simulated 24:7 war. Sorry, back to DCS WW2 now.
ram0506 Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 No new screenshots from DCS WW2, I know, but from the upcoming EDGE. Some foretaste of what is to come!http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1967378&postcount=14A lot of details. Hopefully we`ll get reasonable framerates as well!
DD_bongodriver Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 I believe the engine supports an FPS element.......maybe, pop in to a casino and waste some mothers, jack a few cars, punch old ladies to the ground, random zombies? now that's how to get the younger generation back in to flight sims. 5
Bearcat Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 And FW 190 D9 and helping/advising with the rest of planes too, so i don't have doubt they will be on par with DCS Stang. And that is actually best part of the project, if succesful it will be the best ww2 flightsim in many ways. It would never be that with only one flyable aircraft. Please elaborate, why not? Because it would be best ww2 Mustang simulator, not best ww2 combat/flightsimulator Personally i'm much more interested about Luftwaffe fighters so i'm very glad they decided to do it this way. I agree.... I think for any sim to really qualify as a single era sim given what we have available already you need at least 6 aircraft.. otherwise it is just an aircraft sim.
kestrel79 Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 Those last couple shots are looking really nice.
SimFreak Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Good evening gentlemen!We are finally getting back to business after the long Russian holidays.As I mentioned in my last update, most of the team members were off from December 31st to January 10th, and the calendar being what it is, most did not get back to work until January 13th.I have used this time to take some much-needed rest myself, spending lots of time with my children, and finally getting lots of sleep. Normally, I work on Moscow time all the way from California with an 11-hour time difference, starting my workday at 10 PM, then converting to single dad mode by 7 am. That makes eight hours of sleep in a single block, well, something out a fairy tale for me.Anyway, I thought it would be best to begin 2014 with our most important single task from 2013, the highlight of our kickstarter drive, the cockpit for the Me.262. Unlike most other team members, the two-man crew working on this pit worked through the holidays. With that kind of a work ethic, coupled with doubling up on projects that are usually made single-handedly, these DCS heroes are doing an amazing job staying ahead of schedule and producing consistently stellar quality work. They make the rest of the tasks look bad in comparison, but of course, the overall number of working hours for their cockpits is about the same as for the others. It’s just they need half the calendar time to do the same amount of work.That concludes this week’s update. Please stay tuned for more next Friday!http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/508681281/dcs-wwii-europe-1944/posts/723040
Feathered_IV Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Pretty heroic effort that. Well done to those two, whoever they are.
Rjel Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Excellent work ethic, great dedication to their art. Heroic no. 2
Tektolnes Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Excellent work ethic, great dedication to their art. Heroic no. OK. Thanks for clearing that up. 1
Rjel Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 OK. Thanks for clearing that up. You're welcome. 1
LLv34_Flanker Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 S! DCS WW2 for sure will be on the "to get list" when released, was a bit too late to pledge
Krupi Posted January 22, 2014 Posted January 22, 2014 OK. Thanks for clearing that up. I actually LOL'ed at that comment Thanks! S! DCS WW2 for sure will be on the "to get list" when released, was a bit too late to pledge It seems some were late other wanted to see more before they gave anything, I believe that when we finally get an RRG/DCS WWII Website those that missed will be given the chance to pre-order or add to the funding...
DD_bongodriver Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) Dev update 26https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/508681281/dcs-wwii-europe-1944/posts/729345?ref=activity I love the speed these extremely detailed 3D models are being created at. Edited January 25, 2014 by DD_bongodriver
Tektolnes Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Nice update. Good to see things ticking along. Looking forward to the Dora beta coming along in a bit for DCS World too.
Sternjaeger Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 is the Dora beta going to be a public release?
Tektolnes Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Yep - ED are going to release that first in DCS World to go with the Mustang as a beta open to everybody. Similar to how the Huey and Mi-8 were released. I backed at a level on KS to get access as soon as it's available in DCS World. Presume it'll be a bit longer before it is playable in WW2 as that needs Edge in place I think.
Sternjaeger Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 btw I finally tried the DCS Mustang and it is indeed a solid product: I'm thoroughly enjoying the procedural aspect of it, which is pretty much the same thing of current warbirds configuration (i.e. fuel management is much more simplified now)
ST_ami7b5 Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Dora! Dora! Dora! Looking forward to flying her in DCS:WWII. Also to moving my DCS:World Mustang there - to her natural theatre finally
Chuck_Owl Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) I read somewhere on these forums that DCS (or DCS WWII) had "no potential whatsoever" regarding Multiplayer and dogfighting. Hmm, maybe not. Here's what can be done with the current DCSW engine. Here is some 12 vs 12 action. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8YlKcfzhCA[/media] Edited January 27, 2014 by Chuck_Owl 3
ATAG_Slipstream Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Thats going to be pretty awesome over the WW2 map with 109s and 262's and cem as well!
FuriousMeow Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) I read somewhere on these forums that DCS (or DCS WWII) had "no potential whatsoever" regarding Multiplayer and dogfighting. Hmm, maybe not. Here's what can be done with the current DCSW engine. Here is some 12 vs 12 action. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8YlKcfzhCA[/media] Well I clicked on the wrong button and gave rep when I didn't mean to. No spilled beans though - can never get enough Tuskegee Airmen tributes. However, how does that represent 12 vs 12 multiplayer? I didn't think the 190 was flyable yet? Well other than a few hack jobs that make it roughly flyable. And MP for DCS, admittedly it's been about 8 months since I was last online with DCS, was limited to only a handful of souls - I think I saw 5 or 6 people max on a server with the A10/Su25. So how is this representative of DCS 12 vs 12 multiplayer when one side doesn't have a flyable plane (190D9) and I've not seen a reliably good server before that had more than a couple of people online? DCS is great, their engine is wonderful, and I would like to see what can happen with the EDGE engine - but it seems something is being misrepresented here. Edited January 28, 2014 by FuriousMeow 1
Blooddawn1942 Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 For I am a great fan of DCS, I will pre-order DCS WWII for sure, now as I witness the progress the whole project makes. In the kickstarter phase I wasn't sure about this. But it looks really promising so far!
Tektolnes Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Looks like 12 vs 12 AI which perhaps he could have been clearer about. But the virtual aerobatics server is popular - I was playing the other day with 45 people online on Sunday. Now it wasn't buttery smooth like CloD with 100 people but the latest 1.2.7 release looks to have brought some improvements to netcode stability generally. Xcom also runs a Mustang fight Night once a week with Anon6 - was pretty popular though kind of tough as some of them are tremendous Mustang pilots. We won't see the full improvement until EDGE and dedicated servers are added though. I'm hopeful those two additions will make a difference and we can get some large high fidelity mp dogfights going on. I really enjoy DCS in general so if they can lick the mp problem it should be great. 1
Emgy Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Well, RRG apparently stopped working with ED's terrain artist. (From the ED forums.) Frankly I'm not sad, I think they can do better than ED, if Luthier still employs whoever did terrain in Clod. (Nothing against ED, played most of their products since Flanker 2.0.) Edited January 28, 2014 by Calvamos
Emgy Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) This was posted by the terrain guy seen in one of the kickstarter videos. I do not know anything about the plans of the RRG. Already a lot of time they do not work with me. I think it's strange . But it is a fact. So I can not answer your questions about the project. But maybe things got lost in translation, I (and others in the thread) may of course have misinterpreted his post. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1980839&postcount=209 Edited January 28, 2014 by Calvamos
DD_bongodriver Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 A meaningless piece of information by itself, but yo-yo has reminded everyone that from his end things are going as normal.
Emgy Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Of course, interpreting that post as "RRG stopped working on DCS WW2" is ludicrous. Personally I just hope it means they brought in someone who worked on Clod's terrain. ED's terrain crew has enough work with the Nevada map anyway. Edited January 28, 2014 by Calvamos
ram0506 Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 A meaningless piece of information by itself, but yo-yo has reminded everyone that from his end things are going as normal. Just the link: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1981471&postcount=215 I think, nothing to worry about!
Tektolnes Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Sounds like the terrain guy is a 3rd party outside of RRG and ED. He doesn't seem to know about RRG plans so presumably not part of their company. If he was ED he'd have ED Team under his forum name. In Luthier's last update he said that work on landscape generation had slowed down while they worked on integration with DCS and after that was done a large team were going to work on the landscape. That team may or may not include the 3rd party vendor for whatever reason. Really don't see any need for any concern over this right now.
SYN_Jedders Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 So does that mean that what we have seen in landscape development so far is, or is not going to be in the game?. If it's a 3rd party group having done the work so far then they aren't going to hand it over. Maybe this is the start of ED taking control of the project?....mere speculation of course, but I'm not the first to speculate about this project
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now