Discussion about DCS:WW2 goes here.

[ST_ami7b5]

Totally agree with Matt.

[t4trouble]

 

 

DCS WWII is dead..it was good that they continued to make the add on modules but as an entity DCSWWII has died.

 

 

what a silly statement, based on what ?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

 

 

what a silly statement, based on what ?

 

 

I absolutely respect your opinion, and in fact, I am not trying to invalidate it... However, what is there that shows this is still supported, in progress and on time?

 

DCS WWII could be very cool, but there isn't much that is physically tangible that would lead me to believe anything other than what Dak said - production for that title is dead in the water.

 

Could DCS WWII have died, only to live on as modules within the DCS World core? I would go out on a limb to say there is more supporting that conclusion...

 

(I am one of the ***holes that picked up the 15USD Dora over the weekend and I am having trouble putting it down. Finally, a craft I am familiar enough to fly under ED's engine!)

Edited September 15, 2014 by FalkeEins

[DD_bongodriver]

 

 

what is there that shows this is still supported, in progress and on time?

 

The release of the first aircraft and the demonstrated development of the others?

 

Let's not forget that the WWII development was dumped into ED's lap after the collapse of RRG's involvement, they had no obligations to continue it, they must also satisfy the demand from other parts of the community that are mainly interested in modern era.

 

 

 

Could DCS WWII have died, only to live on as modules within the DCS World core? I would go out on a limb to say there is more supporting that conclusion

 

if we are talking about the original kickstarter called DCS WWII from RRG then clearly it has been no secret that entity is dead, ED's own continuation of the remnants of that development doesn't warrant statements such as Dakpilots, what real difference does it make if it exists as DCS modules? it will be the same aircraft and map available.

[Rjel]

I do enjoy just flying the P-51 around because I can't dogfight in it to save my life. But until I see a Mustang in the BoS livery (I hope I live so long), it's the only game in town.

[B12]

I don't know what it is about the DCS attitude?

 

Its like they scorn customers unless you grovel to them, heard reports where their fanboy scouts go look on other forums and ban them from their own for the slightness evidence of bad words about DCS elsewhere, sad state of affairs.

 

I just dont get the franchise at all? so many unfinished projects, so many beta's, how long have we waited for Nevada map, since A-10 was released and that was not yesterday.

 

This is classic case of a company biting off more than it can chew.

 

If you dare talk to someone there about these bad practises you are grilled or banned.   Fan Boys is all they want there.

 

Their whole business practise is borked and borderline Legal, bought into these terrible people early too and as things happen I've lost a couple of activations over time through just not knowing they were limited, then when I found that out lost one more due to their own faulty download process and more due to my hardcore addiction of uprading PC's and overclocking and unexprected formats ... I've been told different storys where one guy was given more activations and another was told 6 or whatever it is activations should be enough for anyone <---- Terrible customer service attitude right there.

 

They lie about discounts and sales and make fools of the guys that bought full (fool) price so early, never again.

 

I'm not paying a penny to these horrible people ever again.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Katana1000S

[DD_bongodriver]

is that some sort of pre written script where the sim's name is blank for you to fill in yourself? heard this exact same thing about every single sim and its forums.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

if we are talking about the original kickstarter called DCS WWII from RRG then clearly it has been no secret that entity is dead^[1], ED's own continuation of the remnants of that development doesn't warrant statements such as Dakpilots, what real difference does it make if it exists as DCS modules? it will be the same aircraft and map available.

 

That's exactly what I said..? The difference is that they were marketed as separate entities... Furthermore... That is exactly what Dak said, as well. He feels cheated (and may not aught to, but has every right to) and feels that the product he invested in is dead, to much irony, you agreed^[1].

 

is that some sort of pre written script where the sim's name is blank for you to fill in yourself? heard this exact same thing about every single sim and its forums.

 

You have a really, really bad attitude. Do you feel any more self assured when you lurk about being so sour? Is disagreeing in the most condescending, smug way your pre-written script?

 

I hate always being the bear in the room, but

Edited September 15, 2014 by FalkeEins

[DD_bongodriver]

If you say so.

[Emgy]

I think the main loss from RRG folding will be a lack of flashy campaigns. Like the first mission in the Clod RAF campaign, really cool introduction to the game.

Played many ED products since Flanker 1.5, they make interesting, realistic and immersive missions, but it would also nice to have a campaign with shorter, more speculative "Hollywood" missions.

 

Multiplayer should be the same, they were leaning on Yo-Yo even when RRG were involved. 

[Static]

Why rant about what is available and what can be achieved via each developers capability to reality? It is better to have something than nothing.

Spend 60 bucks and take a discovery flight at the local airport to compare you're flight simulator forte', maybe you do well and the CFI lets you try a hammerhead? I was doing hammerheads and wingovers with my CFI after my first few hours, grant it I started in a 1946 Stinson Voyager at eight years old. 

 

DCS devs release good stuff.

777 devs release good stuff. 

Other FS devs release good stuff.

 

Reality: 

 

It'$ all about the stuff! Mainly what sells to the public so the shareholders are happy. We the customer are down the developmental line.

I fly em all. When I power up my C64 for MicroProse Solo Flight I still remember what could be and what we have at present. 

 

-- 

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[Finkeren]

I think the main problem for the DCS WW2 endeavor is not the lack of a campaign. Third parties have proven more than capable of building engrossing campaigns and career modes, that outshine even the best stock campaigns in most CFS.

 

The problem, as I see it, is that these third parties are going to have so little to work with in terms of content to build those campaigns from.

 

Think about it: If everything proceeds according to plan, it'll be another year before we have a grand total of 6 fighter planes, 1 AI bomber and a map that doesn't even quite fit most of the planeset. Imagine where IL2-BoS will be in that time.

Aside from a few hard core enthusiasts most people will have grown tired of the P-51 and the Dora long before there is even the basic elements to build anything resembling a historic campaign.

 

I'm sorry to say, but even if the schedule holds there is just too little content that takes far too long to produce for DCS WW2 to ever be anything other than a study sim, and it's a real shame.

[Tektolnes]

In a year's time there'll be:

 

P51-D

FW190 D-9

Bf109-K4

P47-D

Spitfire MkIX

Me262

P40-F (VEAO)

Spitfire MkXIV (VEAO)

HA-1112 Buchon (VEAO)

F8F Bearcat (VEAO)

Hawker Typhoon (VEAO)

F4F Wildcat (VEAO)

AI B17 Bomber

 

DCS World 2.0 with EDGE

Normandy map & WW2 unit content

North Africa map (VEAO - possibly - date TBC)

SDK for community to make their own maps

 

Excellent full mission editor with combined arms that allows for real-time commander unit control for true dynamic battles.

 

Toss Korean War into the mix as well and the future looks pretty bright to me for vintage combat. We'll have to wait a bit longer before it all coheres and becomes properly historic with a more appropriate map, playable bombers like VEAO's Lancaster, etc. but the day I can't have a lot of fun with the planes above is a sad day for me.

[SYN_Ricky]

In the above list we can group the planes that are relevant together this way as WWII is concerned:

 

A) Normandy map (even if some of these never flew over normandy)

P51-D

FW190 D-9

Bf109-K4

P47-D

Spitfire MkIX

Me262

Spitfire MkXIV

AI B17 Bomber

Hawker Typhoon

 

B) North Africa map

P40-F

F4F Wildcat

Spitfire MkIX (Spit V would be more relevant)

 

C) No map

HA-1112 Buchon

F8F Bearcat

 

So as for now there still is no german plane for North Africa, and no map for Buchon (could be used as an early 109 for Spanish Civil War) and Bearcat.

[Finkeren]

If VEAO delivers even half of those listed within a year, it will be more than a minor miracle. How many finished models have VEAO made so far?

 

Even if they did deliver everything, it would hardly do much to help the situation for the people trying to create scenarios and campaigns. Only the Typhoon would really add something interesting to the mix, and there would still be an extreme lack of multicrew AC.

[Tektolnes]

In the above list we can group the planes that are relevant together this way as WWII is concerned:

 

A) looks a lot of fun to me - I'd bet that the map will be bigger than initially planned by RRG. 

 

B) is a WIP while people play on A) but yes needs mid war German fighters

 

C) is just oddities. The Bearcat is being made as they have direct access to it and it was a formation flying plane which some of the VEAO guys are into. It never flew combat in WW2 or Korea so doesn't really fit in anywhere from that point of view. 

[Chuck_Owl]

If VEAO delivers even half of those listed within a year, it will be more than a minor miracle. How many finished models have VEAO made so far?

 

Even if they did deliver everything, it would hardly do much to help the situation for the people trying to create scenarios and campaigns. Only the Typhoon would really add something interesting to the mix, and there would still be an extreme lack of multicrew AC.

 

VEAO had a lengthy legal battle with BAE (for the Hawk) for quite a while and now that it's been "settled" (or just about to be), they are fixing the last few bugs remaining (including a last-minute landing gear bug).

 

Also, the P-40F is due for december-january timeframe.

 

Saying that they released nothing is just like saying that Leatherneck Sims has released nothing so far (MiG-21 released on the 18th of this month).

 

These third parties had a very rough road ahead of them and once they get their first module out, the following ones should be much easier. Just look at Belsimtek: people were very doubtful of their ability at first, but in less than 2 years they released the Huey, the Mi-8 and the F-86 Sabre (and will release the MiG-15 and the Cobra as well in the next year).

Edited September 16, 2014 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[AceRevo]

Really? HA-1112 Buchon??? Reading about this thing it had its first flight in 1952?? If so, we should by all means see Corsair F4U-4 if not even the latest 5 version..! 

 

I cant see why they are making this HA-1112 Buchon into the game.. 

 

Please inlighten me if Im mistaken or if you feel to school me cuz I might need that. 

 

Edit: Grammar/spelling

Edited September 16, 2014 by AceRevo

[Tektolnes]

Because for starters while they got up to speed on modelling DCS WW2 planes VEAO only wanted to make models of planes that they had direct access to and could get feedback from pilots who fly them in real life. But yes it's still an odd one.

 

But their desire to get that sort of feedback bodes well for the other planes that they're developing e.g. for their Spitfire XIV they have access to the plane at Duxford and also have five RL Spitfire pilots who have agreed to test fly their DCS model to make sure it's spot on. 

[Chuck_Owl]

Really? HA-1112 Buchon??? Reading about this thing it had its first flight in 1952?? If so, we should by all means see Corsair F4U-4 if not even the latest 5 version..! 

 

 

The choice of aircraft depends of many factors. Mainly the licensing (there were several "legal" battles going on between the Il-2 Pacific Battle devs and Grumman regarding license fees and intellectual property) and the aircraft availability. Most of what they model in-game cannot simply be read on a blueprint as a lot of blueprints can be unavailable or lost. I ordered a big amount of Spitfire drawings and even if I had hundreds of drawings, I was still missing a couple of parts because they were either lost/destroyed or simply because some parts were subcontracted to other companies that didn't keep that sort of stuff. There's nothing like having the aircraft directly in front of you when you're modelling it and having access to test pilots makes a HUUUUUGE difference in the quality of the product you're trying to model.  Obviously, the HA-1112 was readily available and Pman and Ells confirmed that a lot of the work put in the Buchon will be reused in other modules' systems to save time.

 

Let us not forget that the Ha-1112 had a peculiar engine and that its Merlin engine was used on many other aircraft...

[Brano]

Most manufacturers put their goods for discount when new model is available but they still want to sell old stuff which blocks their warehouse.Or they sell food for discount just few days before expiration date.Quality product does not change price.

[Finkeren]

VEAO had a lengthy legal battle with BAE (for the Hawk) for quite a while and now that it's been "settled" (or just about to be), they are fixing the last few bugs remaining (including a last-minute landing gear bug).

 

Also, the P-40F is due for december-january timeframe.

 

Saying that they released nothing is just like saying that Leatherneck Sims has released nothing so far (MiG-21 released on the 18th of this month).

 

These third parties had a very rough road ahead of them and once they get their first module out, the following ones should be much easier. Just look at Belsimtek: people were very doubtful of their ability at first, but in less than 2 years they released the Huey, the Mi-8 and the F-86 Sabre (and will release the MiG-15 and the Cobra as well in the next year).

I'd like to believe that VEAO can handle it, but software development is a meritocracy. I trust those who have a proven track record and never put my trust in statements like "now that the first module is out everything will go much smoother".

 

With Belsimtek you're pointing to the best posible example with some of the most succesful releases. Yet even they only managed 3 releases in 2 years, but you're convinced that VEAO will make 6 planes and a new map in 1 year?

Edited September 16, 2014 by Finkeren

[DD_bongodriver]

 

 

but you're convinced that VEAO will make 6 planes and a new map in 1 year?

 

You are absolutely certain they wont?

[Finkeren]

You are absolutely certain they wont?

No, and I would much like to have my scepticism proven wrong.

 

But as I said: Software development is a meritocracy. Trust is earned, never owed.

[DD_bongodriver]

 

 

Trust is earned, never owed.

 

What has trust got to do with it?

[Finkeren]

What has trust got to do with it?

How can you even ask in a thread that debates DCS WW2?

[DD_bongodriver]

How can you even ask in a thread that debates DCS WW2?

 

I just did, it was easy, I don't see the relevance of trust, I only need to trust anybody if they hold life changing power over my life, not a games vendor.

[Finkeren]

Ok Bongo, let me clarify: Tektolnes responded to my concern that the DCS WW2 modules will provide too little content over a too long development period to facilitate good third party campaigns, by argueing that VEAOs warbird collection should be counted as content for DCS WW2 and that it will all be available over the next year, implicitly asking me to "trust" VEAOs promises. I responded by casting doubt on whether VEAO will be able to deliver on those promises, not specifically because I don't trust VEAO, but because I don't trust software developers in general unless they have given me good reason to do so.

[DD_bongodriver]

All sounds a little dramatic.

[Finkeren]

No drama at all. My concern is for the overall future of the DCS WW2 project, which I think will have a tough time moving beyond the "study sim" level. I really want DCS to be a viable alternative to BoS as a historic CFS, and currently that looks far off.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I'd like to believe that VEAO can handle it, but software development is a meritocracy. -snip-

 

 

Yep, yep and yep.

 

You are right on that one and it can be backed by some pretty solid examples, not only in game development but in the software development market in general. The prime one probably being that there is still a visible level of distrust in how this title is being handled due to the over-promise and under-achieve of a previous title. Every time they "rework the 190 pit" (figuratively) they earn the trust and backing of their constituents.

 

ED, DCS, VEAO, etc. is absolutely no different.

-snip- I really want DCS to be a viable alternative to BoS as a historic CFS, and currently that looks far off.

 

This too.

Edited September 16, 2014 by FalkeEins

[DD_bongodriver]

No drama at all. My concern is for the overall future of the DCS WW2 project, which I think will have a tough time moving beyond the "study sim" level. I really want DCS to be a viable alternative to BoS as a historic CFS, and currently that looks far off.

 

it's an interesting way to be concerned about it's future, by broadcasting pessimistic opinions.

[Finkeren]

The prime one probably being that there is still a visible level of distrust in how this title is being handled due to the over-promise and under-achieve of a previous title. Every time they "rework the 190 pit" (figuratively) they earn the trust and backing of their constituents.

I think an important part of the relative success of BoS' development process has been the setting of realistic goals with easy-to-reach milestones along the way.

 

This has allowed development to not only stay on track and deliver what was promised but to actually exceed these promises in some areas:

 

We were told, there would be no animated infantry or ground personel. Now it's being implemented.

 

We were told that the engine startup procedure would be simplified. Now it is fully modelled (still automated, but who knows?)

 

We were told, there would be only two maps in the release (Stalingrad and Lapino) Now there will be four.

 

We were told, there was no chance to see a flyable Ju52 in BoS. Now the responses from Zak and others seem to indicate otherwise.

[Tektolnes]

VEAO planes should be included in a list of planned content until facts prove otherwise. They might be delayed but that's hardly newsworthy in flight sim development. BOS has been delayed. ED modules have been delayed. We'll see how it goes for them. So far they provide very regular updates and they say they're still on track for the Kittyhawk, Bearcat and Spitfire XIV. 

 

I'm perfectly content to wait for DCS WW2 to grow over the next couple of years. Between ED and 3rd parties a lot of good stuff will come and we'll have study sim level planes with correct historical environments. In the meantime next year we'll still have study sim level planes to fly in areas where people can make perhaps not completely historical but still fun missions. Might not appeal to those who want strictly historical but for those of us who like to fly these excellently modelled planes in combat missions against each other it's not an issue. 

[Finkeren]

it's an interesting way to be concerned about it's future, by broadcasting pessimistic opinions.

Why is that? I take it, that you want BoS to be succesful, yet you have on several occations voiced harsh criticism and concerns about the development process (especially when Ilya Muromets was announced)

 

Nothing wrong with expressing concern for a product, you want to be good.

[DD_bongodriver]

 

 

yet you have on several occations voiced harsh criticism and concerns about the development process (especially when Ilya Muromets was announced)

 

Harsh?

[Finkeren]

Harsh?

Yes, your criticisms can be harsh and biting. You certainly don't sugarcoat things. Doesn't mean your concerns aren't valid (they often are) and you are usually better at sticking to the point than the rest of us. But yes, you can be harsh.

[DD_bongodriver]

Sugar is bad for you, responsible for a huge amount of health issues in the western world.

[Chuck_Owl]

Ok Bongo, let me clarify: Tektolnes responded to my concern that the DCS WW2 modules will provide too little content over a too long development period to facilitate good third party campaigns, by argueing that VEAOs warbird collection should be counted as content for DCS WW2 and that it will all be available over the next year, implicitly asking me to "trust" VEAOs promises. I responded by casting doubt on whether VEAO will be able to deliver on those promises, not specifically because I don't trust VEAO, but because I don't trust software developers in general unless they have given me good reason to do so.

 

Nobody's gonna twist your arm to trust them. If you don't, that's up to you, really.

 

I prefer to base my optimism on what I've seen on the VEAO forums: constant updates, a lot of replies by the developers themselves and many very positive comments from people who flew these modules at Duxford (they did showcase their modules during the airshows in a small booth in a hangar). I think that they can pull it off.

[Finkeren]

Nobody's gonna twist your arm to trust them. If you don't, that's up to you, really.

 

I prefer to base my optimism on what I've seen on the VEAO forums: constant updates, a lot of replies by the developers themselves and many very positive comments from people who flew these modules at Duxford (they did showcase their modules during the airshows in a small booth in a hangar). I think that they can pull it off.

As I said: I'd like for VEAO to surprise me. But the way Tektolnes presented it, it sounds like they're trying to do twice the work in half the time compared to the most succesful developer of content for DCS. That just doesn't seem believable to me.

 

I hope I'm wrong. A DCS quality Typhoon will be so much fun on a Normandy map.

Finkeren why are you discussing with this troll?

 

Not worth the time!!

You can call Bongodriver a lot of things. "Troll" is not among them.