Discussion about DCS:WW2 goes here.

[FuriousMeow]

 If people are wary of a project by this person then fair enough but 1C were involved with CloD as well and it's not put off some of the DCS detractors here from pre-ordering BoS.

 

Because 1C just financially funded the project. They ran out of money after so many years to keep funding it. They didn't mismanage the project or reboot it half way through.

 

That's like the company in The Simpsons that let Homer design his own car. All they did was fund it, and he put out that awful abortion leaving them penniless. Not quite the same since 1C isn't broke, but they had as much in CloD's demise as the company that simply provided Homer funds to make an abomination.

[kestrel79]

I agree with Sim. The team should start out small. Make the best, most amazing ww2 aircraft module for DCS. Prove to us that they got their mojo back and build that trust and confidence back up. THEN, after they won us over goto a full kickstarter on a robust ww2 module for DCS. That makes the most sense to me.

 

I hope they release some more info and media before it's over.

[ST_ami7b5]

No PayPal option.

Strange, as I've bought all DCS modules using PayPal.

[Matt]

I think i'll first have to check anything of the DCS series to make a decision. I'm not impressed by the terrain in all videos regarding DCS flightsims i've seen so far, and those preview shots didn't change that.

 

Might be time to buy DCS: A-10, after all i have the TM Warthog for almost two years now.

 

Then i might give a few € to support this idea, but i'm very very sceptical to be honest. I also find the combination of very late war planeset and Normandy map a bit weird.

[ST_ami7b5]

Sometimes they have sales on DCS modules with good discounts...

I have A-10C, Black Shark 2, P-51D, Su-25T and Huey. 

Don't like the terrain, will se what EDGE will bring.

[dburne]

I think i'll first have to check anything of the DCS series to make a decision. I'm not impressed by the terrain in all videos regarding DCS flightsims i've seen so far, and those preview shots didn't change that.

 

Might be time to buy DCS: A-10, after all i have the TM Warthog for almost two years now.

 

Then i might give a few € to support this idea, but i'm very very sceptical to be honest. I also find the combination of very late war planeset and Normandy map a bit weird.

 

DCS World is available as a free download, and comes with the SU-25 plane.

If you just want to check out terrain , that is easy way to do it.

 

And oh yes, DCS-A10C and the Warthog fit together like a glove.

[D13th_Korn]

DCS terrain is basically crap, and i say that as a constant player and owner of most DCS modules.  Other than size it's got little going for it.  High alt is ok by low...  bad.  Good textures on airfields but otherwise not good at all.

 

However there a new terrain engine coming, EDGE, this is actually what's in the tiny screenshots on Kickstarter.  They say it's with low res placeholder textures and that's what they're not showing it down and dirty.

 

I don't want too bs people, i like DCS but i don't expect EDGE will make you crap your pants .  I'm sure it will be an improvement but probably low level terrain won't look as good as Il2BoS will, if dev updates are any indication.

 

That being said, aircraft simulation/graphics & cockpit graphics + functionality in DCS is absolutely superb.  Transition from old Il2-like level "simulation" to DCS P-51 is almost brutal.  There is beauty in flying this beast pretty much as they actually flew it...  much more to it than put you throttle to max, SA and some energy management.

 

Everyone who's interested in DCS should give the free Su-25T a go, the FM is awesome and should give you an idea of what we're talking about, even though if the avionics are simplified as per Flaming Cliffs model.  Also you can check out the current state of the terrain... not that impressive, like i said.

 

I like that they went to opposite side of the war than BoS.  Hopefully this will lessen the friction between communities...  This bad perceived loyalty is dumb, just play both games and enjoy them.  Hopefully they're good enough for us to to do just that... it's not like the market is filled with WW2 sims and you can't find the time to play all of these beauties.

 

Here's to success of both franchises...  one can only hope they reach such a quality level you'll be torn between them

Edited September 6, 2013 by D13th_Korn

[=CHN=Crash]

This is one reason why i support it.

[theOden]

DCS terrain is basically crap..

 

That's when being a Falcon4 e-pilot comes in handy, I find IL2-46, Ben Dover, FC2, DCS, RoF all having a most wonderful terrain - love all of them.

[Uufflakke]

That's when being a Falcon4 e-pilot comes in handy, I find IL2-46, Ben Dover, FC2, DCS, RoF all having a most wonderful terrain - love all of them.

 

Ben Dover?

I think you mean Cliffs of Dover.

'Cause Ben Dover is in other business.

[ATAG_Slipstream]

Just under 30k in the first 24 hours. Not bad at all!

[AndyJWest]

One thing that has seen little comment so far - the map size: Luthier posted on the DCS forum "Normandy is about 100x160km". He later went on to say "Even a Normandy-sized map is almost a year of work. An entire Europe - theoretically possible to make, but how many Normandies fit into a Europe? That's how many man-years it would take to make to the same quality standard". http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=109847&page=103

 

For comparison, the BoS map is 360 x 230 km, according to Loft. http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?do=findComment&comment=4610

[JG27_Chivas]

I'm not a big fan of the DCS Worlds current terrain, but their new EDGE graphic engine, with DX11 support could change that.  It appears the EDGE graphic engine is still a WIP, and being used while building the Normandy map.  Time will tell, but it certainly should be a big improvement over the current graphic engine.

[ATAG_Slipstream]

Luthier posted some info on how the game will work with the already released P51 and (soon to be?) FW.  I'm loathe to post the link because, well you know. Its on page 23 of the thread at ED.

[SYN_Haashashin]

Will wait. DCS is not my thing, but if they get close to the goal which give me my childhood dream of flying a well simulated B-17, then I will back it or buy it or whatever is needed to get my hand on that B-17.

 

If its happens, I will be looking for a crew

[Dutch]

Will wait. DCS is not my thing, but if they get close to the goal which give me my childhood dream of flying a well simulated B-17, then I will back it or buy it or whatever is needed to get my hand on that B-17.

 

If its happens, I will be looking for a crew

 

They will get to the goal as long as you back it. Saying you will back it if they get close to the goal strikes me as a little self-defeating. Just back them, even if it's for $1. Every little helps.

[Bearcat]

I would back $40 immediatelly IF it was another theatre... (Pacific, Africa..)

I already have DCS:P-51, so at least I will take her for a ride in her natural environment.

 

I care less about the theater as I do the product. If the product is good then the theaters will eventually come.. Look at IL2 ... I guarantee you that this time in 2002 no one dreamed that one day IL2 would cover the theaters it does with the planeset it has.. and I am talking stock here.. Not to mention all the other features.. like WS support, multi engined support, 6DoF, a 64 plane QMB and more..

[SYN_Haashashin]

Well I see this way.

 

You back it because you want a sim with those fighters at DCS level. I do not back them just because the campaing didnt appeal to me at all and Im no interested in DCS, never have been, so is not a question of who develop it is a question of product. You call it self-defeating thats your opinion and Im good with it even if I dont agree with it.

[Uufflakke]

I don't want too bs people, i like DCS but i don't expect EDGE will make you crap your pants .  I'm sure it will be an improvement but probably low level terrain won't look as good as Il2BoS will, if dev updates are any indication.

 

It is hard to say if BoS low level terrain looks better indeed. Till sofar the dev updates use a test map. I really have no clue how it finally will look like.

Hopefully the released version has more to offer than that bumpmapped pristine white christmas map we see all the time. But I still keep faith in the team it all turns out good, and convincing.

Really would like to know the resolution of textures by the way. 1024x1024 or like modded IL2 with its 2048x2048 size textures? Which look frikkin' awesome from very low altitude.

 

The shown DCS WWII screenshot of Point du Hoc is a torture for the eyeballs. But according Luthier's answer textures are just placeholders and they are deliberately doing wide angle screenshots 'cause up close it doesn't look great and is still low rez. A relief to read that the spinach green textures are only temporary.

Which makes me wonder though why showing that screenshot if everything is a placeholder and doesn't represent the game's terrain?

The 2 other included map screenshots are not Normandy at all.

How about the so called EDGE engine? The community has been waiting already for a couple of years for the "EDGEd" Nevada map. Still WIP.

It seems that Normandy will be the first released EDGE terrain.

In 12 or 15 days we can expect some HD footages and screenshots of the updated and improved Normandy area. 

Patience is a virtue but 2 weeks (be sure ) looks sooo far away.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

I will most likely back this also. I don't have great expectations and setting sounds a bit off (Normandy map + late 1944 planes for Germans), but it would still be great if the product was good. And it may also give me an opportunity to fly later war birds before BoS gets there

[Zmaj76]

Luthier wrote:

The problem with tree collisions, at least in my past experience, is just in the sheer number of collision objects.

 

There is probably a hundred million trees and bushes across a large gameplay map.

 

That's potentially up to a hundred million collision objects for the engine to track. You obviously need to track the trees any place there are planes at lower altitude. In a multiplayer match, for example, where you can have dozens of people flying all over the map, you may potentially need to track every single tree across the map. An extreme case, but you know what I mean. All these trees also need to be tracked constantly, every tick, multiple times a second.

 

You can't check for collisions between millions of 3D objects 20 times a second. 

 

This kills the PC.

 

 

This is so unfortunate...Im sorry Luthier....

Edited September 6, 2013 by Tvrdi

[ATAG_Slipstream]

 

 

This is so unfortunate...Im sorry Luthier....

I don't think Luthier is here Tvrdi, you should probably have posted that at the ED forum.

Edited September 6, 2013 by JG4_Uther

[Feathered_IV]

RoF seems to handle huge numbers of trees very well, without resorting to the nitro explosion if you touch one.

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

You wont get the nitro explosion, you cant hit them.

[Zmaj76]

I posted it in every fn forum in the universe haha

without trees is ugly and when we have ghost trees ppl abuse them for level escapes

Edited September 6, 2013 by Tvrdi

[Rjel]

I can't and won't support just any sim because it might help the genre. What I will do is support a product I believe in. I supported the presale of BoS because of the info provided by Jason and company and my prior experience with RoF. I have to admit I'm leaning toward putting the $40 into Kickstarter for DSC. Not because I feel any obligation to support any and all sims but because my contribution is apparently refundable if they don't reach a certain level of funding. If they do then it appears we will get a (hopefully) solid product in return.

 

If flight sims are going to continue, IMO they need to become games as well as simulations. Their worlds need to become more lifelike. More alive. I've love IL-2 like everyone else but it's a very dead world unless someone puts a lot of time into the FMB. Even then nothing ever happens unexpectedly. That might be great for online flying but it just doesn't seem remotely lifelike to me. If BoS or DSC can someday do that, I think it could draw in a huge new audience.

[kongxinga]

Can someone explain how this kickstarter thingy works? Do I need my real name and what happens if they don't meet funding goals, or meet it and fail to make the project? Is my money kaput? I read a few faqs but am still confused, and I want to support ww2 DCS, but a few worries is keeping me back.

 

Sorry this was kinda non sequitur.

 

*response to below*

So in the section "Full name' I can put my nome de guerre? And they won't rescind my backing? I was browsing the backers and saw all the people with real names out.

Edited September 6, 2013 by kongxinga

[Zmaj76]

mo real name and if they dont reach the goal no charge will be made

Edited September 6, 2013 by Tvrdi

[nynek]

Fifteen minutes of start up, left jerking movement of airframe at 221.5 km/h with 15 degree left bank at 10000 meters which "feels authentic" and 10 players BIG, EPIC dogfight is not for me.

I do wish everything best to the DCS. This time I'll wait. So far watching Team Fusion at work and what They accomplished in graphics and net optimization left me with nagging question about

abilities of some developers to deliver anything. 

I'm multiplayer guy but I really do understand the urge just to fly, I do that very often in FSX  Cessna.

[AndyJWest]

Can someone explain how this kickstarter thingy works? Do I need my real name and what happens if they don't meet funding goals, or meet it and fail to make the project? Is my money kaput? I read a few faqs but am still confused, and I want to support ww2 DCS, but a few worries is keeping me back.

 

Sorry this was kinda non sequitur.

 

*response to below*

So in the section "Full name' I can put my nome de guerre? And they won't rescind my backing? I was browsing the backers and saw all the people with real names out.

 

You need to register to sign up, with an email account and a credit/debit card. They won't debit your account if they don't meet the minimum funding goal. As for them completing the project, there is clearly no guarantee, and no refunds if they don't - at that point, they will presumably have spent the money. This is one of the risks with Kickstarter, and a good reason not to 'invest' what you can't afford to lose.

Edited September 6, 2013 by AndyJWest

[kongxinga]

You need to register to sign up, with an email account and a credit/debit card. They won't debit your account if they don't meet the minimum funding goal. As for them completing the project, there is clearly no guarantee, and no refunds if they don't - at that point, they will presumably have spent the money. This is one of the risks with Kickstarter, and a good reason not to 'invest' what you can't afford to lose.

Thank you for your reply. This is allowing me to make a better decision.

 

How much of a cut is Kickstarter taking? Is there a exclusivity agreement, so the devs cannot solicite funding elsewhere? Would there be opportunities to back the dev directly?

[AndyJWest]

According to Wikipedia, Kickstarter takes a 5% cut, and Amazon charges an additional 3-5%.  As for the rest, you'd have to ask DCS WWII.

Edited September 6, 2013 by AndyJWest

[tempered]

There is no exclusive on a kickstarter project. As a matter of fact, it has become standard practice to launch a kickstarter and launch on steam greenlight simultaneously.  I've also seen projects that were collecting donations or selling early access on their own web site while running a kickstarter campaign.

 

 One thing that you must be aware of about kickstarter is that even if the funding goals are reached, there is absolutely nothing stopping the developer from taking the money and not delivering a product.  You agree to the risk when pledging your support.  I don't believe that this has ever happened, however.

 

 I've personally backed 16 different projects. Some were electronics devices, some games, and even one book.  It is a great way to sponsor the development of products you want, but would never be made through normal channels.

 

 As for DCS: WW2, I believe that they probably had this planned for some time, but did not have the resources to go all out on it.  That is where Oleg and Illya come in.  They license the DCS technology,  make the WW2 theaters and planes, and Eagle Dynamics can concentrate on the game engine.

 

 Also, I'm kind of thinking that their kickstarter is not going to make their $100,000 goal.  They are not doing enough to get the word out, and have not shown enough to assure pledgers that the game will be completed.

Edited September 7, 2013 by tempered

[MineFewer]

I care less about the theater as I do the product. --snip--

 

Same here, but I pledged my $40 as a token of appreciation for the fun I've gotten from Il-2 series over the years, especially the most recent one from April 2011.

[MadTommy]

10$ is all I will give. There simply is no evidence yet to support that they can deliver quality game, and I don't want to give away my money based on beliefs and hope. Still, I hope they will succeed.

 

Apart from the fact that ED and more precisely yo-yo is over seeing the flight models and everything else.. have produced quite simply the highest fidelity WWII fighter to date.. the DCS P-51.  No flight sim fan can, who has flown it, deny that fact surely.

 

This project is very exciting... and the competition can only 'help' others.

Edited September 7, 2013 by MadTommy

[BFsSmurfy]

I posted it in every fn forum in the universe haha

without trees is ugly and when we have ghost trees ppl abuse them for level escapes

He`s right , how can you have jabo missions strafing ground targets and happily fly through trees it`s a joke in the "we`re study simmers you know" world. I stuck $40 in and that`s all it`ll get, a map the size of a postage stamp for planes capable of well over 500kmh and a Korean? era P51, misunderstandings over what planes you get at different donation levels and incorrect types listed on the kickstarter (remember Pacific Fighters!!!!) did he take anything onboard from the CloD disaster??. I`m not being abusive I`m just saying my concerns at the launch hopefully won`t follow through to the release. No tree collision!!!!

[LLv44_Mprhead]

I have not bothered to go their forums yet, but I do wonder if there is lot's of "omg, only 5 flyable planes!!! omg, wrong map for the planeset!!!" etc. going on in there... Joking aside, I think they have an advantage in working under DCS nametag and not having to deal with expectations that come with IL-2 name.

[=CHN=Crash]

No tree collision, no PayPal = no kick from me...

That's not the 3rd-party team's job.

[Matt]

Fifteen minutes of start up, left jerking movement of airframe at 221.5 km/h with 15 degree left bank at 10000 meters which "feels authentic" and 10 players BIG, EPIC dogfight is not for me.

Just curious, with 10 players dogfight, do you mean MP only supports 10 players?

[SvAF/F16_Goblin]

It doesn't matter if it's third party teams job or not. The DCS haven't tree collision modelled. EDGE will most likely not get it either.

Fine for high altitude jet flying or semi low altitude A10 of frog-foot engagement. For helicopters not so. And the AI look/shoot through
trees and clutter not good.

 

And the fact that not everyone wants to spread credit card data all over the internet is not to be frowned upon either!

I most certainly will not spread it around on multiple sites either. I have Pay Pal and will not get anything else.

 

Those two above and I'm also not backing right now. I definitely don't see the two reasons above as "juvenile". Period.

 

O and for the record I have every single CDS module except Mi-8.

Edited September 7, 2013 by 332_HaJa