Discussion about DCS:WW2 goes here.

[Finkeren]

Well I'd think an 8 months deadline should be long enough to make one single map. I was hoping to see it a bit sooner tbh.

[AceRevo]

that was my thought too so they probably set the release date for this map so late becouse of their other prioritizations. Before they start working on the normandy map, they will finish off the map for the new F-18. 

[Emgy]

Finkeren, what can you even buy for 12$in Denmark. Two red hot-dogs? Might as well buy the Mustang.

[Finkeren]

I think I'll do it, and FYI 12$ will just barely buy you a small McDonald's menu (not that you'd want to eat at a Danish McD)

[BMA_West]

I think I'll do it, and FYI 12$ will just barely buy you a small McDonald's menu (not that you'd want to eat at a Danish McD)

 

Install the for free DCS world and you have untill ultimately 15/09 to try its also free  TF51D ...

Win/win.

Edited September 4, 2014 by West

[ST_ami7b5]

I'm not really complaining about the choice of map, though that is an issue by itself. My comment was directed at the "looks promising" part. We've known that the Normandy map is coming for a long time. That's not really news. The news part was, that it's apparently going to be delayed because the map makers are currently busy creating something for the Hornet. That to me is dicouraging, because I will have limited incentive to fly DCS WW2 until we get historical environments.

LOL, OK last response.

Promising for me is that the open beta starts sooner than I expected and I will get rid of that ugly Georgia map at last.

Still a lot to learn (level bombing especially) in BoS.

So no drama for me.

Edited September 4, 2014 by ST_ami7b5

[Finkeren]

I just think, that it's funny, that the announcement of Ilya Muromets caused a major uproar in this community, because it was assumed that it would take ressources away from development of BoS. A fear that so far seems to have been unfounded, but let's see if BoS meets its deadline this month. Yet the announcement that the map makers working on the Normandy map for DCS are now working on something else, is just par for the course? 

 

Anyway. I think I'm gonna pull the 12 bucks from this months budget and have a go at the Pony.

[Bassly]

Yet the announcement that the map makers working on the Normandy map for DCS are now working on something else, is just par for the course? 

 

It's other way around over there. ED is being accused that DCS WWII will take recources away from Hornet development, which was announced long time ago. Just the typical ranting, nothing new and pretty much equal seen here.

 

12 bucks for Mustang is a good deal. Have fun with my little pony.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Bassly

[ST_ami7b5]

...

 

Anyway. I think I'm gonna pull the 12 bucks from this months budget and have a go at the Pony.

Just do it

[Emgy]

I'm not into study sims, but I got it on sale last winter so I'd have it for DCS WWII. It'll be expensive to collect all planes, so get the cheap one when you can, IMO.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Calvamos

[Brano]

They better drop that Normandy map completly and focus on Korea.I will not buy for sure map,where LW was almost nonexistent in june/july 1944.(not to mention Kurfurst,Dora and Me262.) It will be just another placeholder,for sure prettier then actual DCS map,but still placeholder.But I can understand they have to keep to that DCSWW2 enterprise,as they had to save original kickstarter failure and not lose customers who invested into it.

 

For me planeset must match the environment.Anything else is same as we had in old sturm.Those generic maps where we pretended we fly over there and there.....placeholders.

[Nage]

They better drop that Normandy map completly and focus on Korea.I will not buy for sure map,where LW was almost nonexistent in june/july 1944.(not to mention Kurfurst,Dora and Me262.) It will be just another placeholder,for sure prettier then actual DCS map,but still placeholder.But I can understand they have to keep to that DCSWW2 enterprise,as they had to save original kickstarter failure and not lose customers who invested into it.

 

For me planeset must match the environment.Anything else is same as we had in old sturm.Those generic maps where we pretended we fly over there and there.....placeholders.

Well, thers best FM up to date (this is my humble opinion as I own all the advanced sims on the marked and been playin sims since the 90s), superb CEM, clickable cockpits and very detailed and beautiful cockpits (and external models). This have its audience no matter if planeset is 100% right for the time or map. Others will have historical accuraciy but will lack forementioned stuff and quality.

To each its own.

 

@Calvamos - I learned startup procedures and CEM in one day of playing...now its routine and ends in no time (Dora is even easier than P51)...then again I guess for some "midcore simmers" or ex warthunder player it can be too much "of fiddling"....

Edited September 4, 2014 by tikvic

[9./JG27golani79]

Install the for free DCS world and you have untill ultimately 15/09 to try its also free  TF51D ...

Win/win.

 

The TF51D which is flyable in the free DCS World is limited in time?

 

Can anyone give me a quick summary on the differences between TF51D and P51D?

[Emgy]

 

 

@Calvamos - I learned startup procedures and CEM in one day of playing...now its routine and ends in no time (Dora is even easier than P51)...then again I guess for some "midcore simmers" or ex warthunder player it can be too much "of fiddling"....

 

 

Of course, one has to learn startup procedures to play in DCS WWII full switch servers  . What I mean with study sim, is flying P-51 over modern day Georgia or Nevada. (And when I bought it, there was no Dora opponent for multiplayer.)

Edited September 4, 2014 by Calvamos

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 TF-51D is a training version of the Mustang. Dual controls and all that. And has a longer tail fin.

[9./JG27golani79]

I see - thanks Flanker!

[Tektolnes]

The TF51D which is flyable in the free DCS World is limited in time?

 

No time limit - it's completely free to keep forever. ED released the trainer version so people can get a feel for DCS World and how they model WW2 birds and decide if they then want to shell out more for the combat ready versions.

[ST_ami7b5]

They better drop that Normandy map completly and focus on Korea.I will not buy for sure map,where LW was almost nonexistent in june/july 1944.(not to mention Kurfurst,Dora and Me262.) It will be just another placeholder,for sure prettier then actual DCS map,but still placeholder.But I can understand they have to keep to that DCSWW2 enterprise,as they had to save original kickstarter failure and not lose customers who invested into it.

 

For me planeset must match the environment.Anything else is same as we had in old sturm.Those generic maps where we pretended we fly over there and there.....placeholders.

 

Brano, I backed DCS:WWII - after a long hesitation I just went against my instincts (Luthier) - just to support the genre.

Now I will have Mustang, Dora, Normandy map, open beta.

Much better than nothing after the failure...

I have no interest in jets (love just prop planes, WWI, WWII), so no Korea for me, sry.

 

Edit: and if DCS:WWII sells well I hope we will get proper maps eventually.

But I agree with you that  planes should be used in their historical context (maps).

Edited September 4, 2014 by ST_ami7b5

[9./JG27golani79]

Thanks for clarification Tektolnes - guess I was a bit confused because of the above comment and the date.

[Chuck_Owl]

Looks promising? To me it sounds like "we've currently put work on DCS WW2 environment aside in favor of something else, but we promise that we'll get right back on it, once we're finished with this other thing we've got going on"

 

A period map (unfitting of the actual planeset as it may be) is not "the other major element of DCS WW2", it's the essential element. Without it, you don't have a period combat flight sim, you have a bunch of FSX addons with guns.

 

Honestly, once you're up in the air flying formation, the terrain "hardly" matters. For me, anyway. I thought exactly like you at the beginning, but once bullets start flying you completely forget about how flying in Georgia s*cks.

 

I've played on the Dogs of War WWII server (P-51 vs Dora) and fighting in these planes is an experience completely out of this world. Flight dynamics in the Mustang are unforgiving and once you understand how to fly it, you appreciate that much more the effort they put in the FM department. Because of the P-51, I actually understand much, much better how laminar wings actually work aerodynamics-wise and it even helped me in some aerospace courses at university (not even kidding).

 

At the moment, they're releasing planes instead of maps because they generate a steadier income, which I find hard not to understand. The NTTR map has been requested for years and I think it's normal that they prioritize over this one first.

 

I do not agree with you on the "study sims are boring and like FSX with guns" part. Even with the current editor, there are some pretty neat missions that you can make that can be tweaked to better represent the time setting. Just look at this http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=128644 Like I said, there are missions in MP at this very moment that allow to go beyond the purely "study" aspect of the sim. We have actual missions with actual goals and objectives, just like you would in other games. Of course, it's not to the extent of BoS or CloD, but it'll get there eventually. 

 

One thing I'd like to mention. The value of each single module cannot be calculated in terms of dollars: it's calculated in terms of historical value. You have literally the only combat sim that does the aircraft with almost every functional switch, knob and system. Once you learn a plane, you learn how to fly it and operate it for real. I could never hope to fly a Yak in real life... BoS just doesn't make you understand how to operate the aircraft. However, I'm pretty sure I could fly a Mustang and a Dora. The manuals are just as good as the historical ones and putting all these details in application is something that nothing else on the market can provide. I could never pay millions for a restauration of a P-51, but I sure as hell can fork 40 bucks to "fly virtually" one whenever I feel like it.

Edited September 4, 2014 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[Finkeren]

It's not that I don't appreciate the detail and intricacy of a study sim, I would like for BoS to reach the same level of detail (or as close as posible) at some point. It's just that I derive immersion in a CFS from the environment, the correct planeset, historically plausible missions and believable AI more than from the modelling of the plane itself. I'm not a pilot (hope someday to be one) and I have but the most basic understanding of aerodynamics and flight physics, so I can only appreciate, that a flight sim "feels" right. BoS does that for me, and I'm sure DCS will too, in time. Right now, all I would have to look forward to is battling the same plane over and over again, which quite frankly is a dull prospect. BoS offers some variety at least, but a combat sim only becomes truly great for me, when the plane set reaches around 25 different types, I guess I'm a Forest GUmp kind of simmer, I just don't ever wanna know, what I'm gonna be up against.

 

Only two sims have ever fully satisfied me in this regard: IL-2 1946 and RoF.  

[Chuck_Owl]

I feel about aircraft like pokemons: gotta catch 'em all.

Edited September 4, 2014 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[Finkeren]

Sure enough. And it's never enough is it?

 

I remember a couple years ago, we drew up a list of the most important aircraft for RoF, that were deemed absolutely essential for a "complete" WW1 sim. We ended up with well over 100 aircraft that weren't yet in RoF

[Chuck_Owl]

I have a few aircraft I'd like to see done in the DCS level meself.

 

B-17, B-24, Lancaster, Pe-8, Halifax, B-25, Wellington, He-111, Ju-88, Il-4... Bombers are REALLY underrepresented in sims in general... Yet people think that they are the easiest to fly and the most boring because "you just fly in a straight line". They couldn't be farther form the truth. In my opinion, they are some of the most interesting aircraft to fly in multiplayer because it actually forces you to navigate much more precisely than you would in a fighter. When I'm leading a bomber wing, I find that I have a much heavier workload than I would in a fighter.

 

I'd also like other planes too: Spitfire Mk I, II, V, IX, XIV, XVI, Bf.109F4, G6, P-40, P-38, Yak-3, 7, 9, P-39, La-5FN, La-7, Il-2, Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest, FW190As, Beaufighter, Mosquito, Corsair, etc, etc, etc...

 

The list just never ends.

[Finkeren]

The original IL-2 with full mods is getting there, but the quality of modeling....?

[Emgy]

I'm sorry for steering the thread towards the study sim issue, that was not the intent at all. The point was that if you buy the P-51 now, you'll be well set for exploring DCS WWII combat, as the Normandy map will likely be available as a separate purchase. 

[9./JG27golani79]

Got me the Mustang now - probably will go for the Dora too.

 

Damn you deals!

[AndyJWest]

Hum, now there is a DCS sale on, I'm in something of a dilemma. Do I buy something big, noisy and Russian, as I intended to, or buy something big, noisy and Russian instead? 

 

Ilya Muromets from IC/777, or  Mi-8MTV2 from Belsimtek/DCS? Far too difficult to decide, I'll have to buy both, obviously... 

[Finkeren]

B-17, B-24, Lancaster, Pe-8, Halifax, B-25, Wellington, He-111, Ju-88, Il-4... Bombers are REALLY underrepresented in sims in general... Yet people think that they are the easiest to fly and the most boring because "you just fly in a straight line". They couldn't be farther form the truth. In my opinion, they are some of the most interesting aircraft to fly in multiplayer because it actually forces you to navigate much more precisely than you would in a fighter. When I'm leading a bomber wing, I find that I have a much heavier workload than I would in a fighter.

 

There is no question, that with better terrain/sky (to facilitate proper navigation) and a good crew management system DCS could be the perfect simulator for big bombers. That's where all the intricate systems of the aircraft come into their own, and with such beautiful interiors in DCS, even flying as radio operator on a B17, buried deep in the fuselage, would be something special.

[Chuck_Owl]

Hum, now there is a DCS sale on, I'm in something of a dilemma. Do I buy something big, noisy and Russian, as I intended to, or buy something big, noisy and Russian instead? 

 

Ilya Muromets from IC/777, or  Mi-8MTV2 from Belsimtek/DCS? Far too difficult to decide, I'll have to buy both, obviously... 

 

The Mi-8 is a wonder of engineering. I had never flown any russian DCS module before because I just found them uninteresting. But when I saw the power of the russian engines... just wow. I was so impressed that I immediately began reading about the Ka-50 (and bought it too) and the Mig-21 (which will come out end of september/beginning of october).

 

Couldn't recommend the Mi-8 more. It's a very, VERY interesting aircraft to fly and to operate. The interior is huge: you'll love it!

[AndyJWest]

Yeah, it looks that way. Though 'huge interior', along with 'acres of glass up front' and a general air of advanced horse-frightening capabilities would cover the Ilya Mo too - which I'm currently downloading. I went for that first, as it will probably be marginally easier to get into the air and down again without recreating the Tunguska event.

 

As for the MiG-21, it is definitely one I'll be adding to my collection at some point.

[Emgy]

Whaat, I didn't know VEAO (the Hawk/Typhoon group) had teams working on WW2 planes.

 

Curtiss P-40F - December 2014 *
Grumman F8F Bearcat – February 2015 *
Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIV – April 2015 *

HA-1112 Buchon - May 2015 *

The * next to the aircraft indicates that we are in contract with ED for those. 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=127100

Edited September 5, 2014 by Calvamos

[siipperi]

If you read trough some posts in DCS they are working on this other map too for the F18 Super Hornet. Normany will be delayed becosue of that or they are just prioritizing this other map first. The normany map wont be released until May becouse of that, or the map will be delayed becouse of that. So, if they were to prioritize Normandy first, the map would probably be ready sooner.. At least thats how I understand it from reading trough threads about the matter on their forum.

 

ED is working on F/A 18C not on super hornet.

 

But as someone mentioned, majority of DCS community wants Hornet to have priority over the WW2 content.

[AceRevo]

ED is working on F/A 18C not on super hornet.

 

But as someone mentioned, majority of DCS community wants Hornet to have priority over the WW2 content.

Right, my bad! 

[Chuck_Owl]

Now eat yer' vegetables! 

[Feathered_IV]

I would agree with Finkeren that the greatest source of inspiration in a flight sim (for me) is in the atmosphere and the degree to which the simulation can immerse me in the locations, history and personalities of the period.  I think of all the titles under professional development, BoS has the best chance of delivering this.  I don't think I will get much satisfaction from dodging SAM's in an Me-262 over Nevada

Edited September 6, 2014 by Feathered_IV

[snowsnipersnow_sniper]

I feel about aircraft like pokemons: gotta catch 'em all.

 

I think we're a lot like you Chuck ! 

[Feathered_IV]

Don't worry tikvic.  Like I said, It's just my personal preferences.  I'm more for single player immersion and a strong historcial recreation.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 I wonder which model of F/A-18C they are going to model. The original, MLU 1 or MLU 2? 

[Bassly]

There's very little information on the Hornet.

 

Here's 81 pages of guessing without going too much off topic with this one: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=112566