Discussion about DCS:WW2 goes here.

[Zmaj76]

Guys, you cant call something "hardcore sim"  if you have ghost trees....specially since ROF and BOS (in the future) raised standard here regarding tree collision.....How the hell you can play any serious mission with ghost trees in a simulator..dont make me laugh......not that ROF engine doesnt have flaws but ghost trees are JOKE...in serious sims....I mean we saw Oleg and we heard it will be something special, DCS (serious player) is in bla bla...and I got exited....then....EDGE....has ghost trees W-T-F??? Its like you buy a car which looks like ferrari but its made of cheap plastic and can fall apart anytime....comedy

 

Im out

Edited September 7, 2013 by Tvrdi

[MadTommy]

The animosity between 'different' combat flight sim community fans really makes me scratch my head and despair at this genre sometimes.  

 

Why people can't be positive and save their judgements for when a product is actually released is beyond me.  I see the same crap written on opposing flight sim forums every day.  Really sorry state that the flight sim community has found itself in in 2013.

[Mastermariner]

Im out

I certainly hope so but I very much doubt it!

 

Your Master

[Zmaj76]

I certainly hope so but I very much doubt it!

 

Your Master

Out from kickstarte I meant. Im sorry for you dear.

 

@Tommy - with me..its isnt who do I like...Im not sticking out from anybodys ar*e (like some) nor im in naybodys tent....just want to play a good simulator....we all know what it should have....at least basics....otherwise I would play some warhunder or simmilar arcade

 

BTW Im tired  of ppl who bitch about ppl who express their opinions freely, without agendas or BIASES and without sticking out from somebodys ar*e....If you dont like em dont comment....

Edited September 7, 2013 by Tvrdi

[Tektolnes]

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.

 

15 mins to start up the Mustang? Are you starting it up 15 times in a row?

 

And the flight model is authentic - it was verified by real life Mustang pilots at the Fighter Collection. It was also verified again recently at Duxford when some of the Four Horsemen display team put the plane through it's paces and said that it was very close to the real thing. I'll take those experienced pilots opinions.

 

Multiplayer isn't up to scratch though yet. Due to the lack of dedi server support (which is on the way) it tops out at around 30. We'll see how this improves over the next year.

[BFsSmurfy]

It`s not about animosity between different communities it`s about basic day 1 flaws, no tree collision is poor in this day and age it doesn`t matter if thats a DCS issue or RRG`s it`s a flaw, if you buy a Seat you don`t take it to Volkswagen if the engine isn`t right, if you include a flaw in your product your responsibility is equal to the others. I point blank do not understand the tree issue, why is it so hard to overcome, IL2, RoF, BoS all have it, I don`t care if the tree looks like a perfectly modeled oak or a bloody 20 pixel bit of Broccoli, less trees, less polygons less of anything that`s involved will suit me fine as long as my plane gets damaged/destroyed if I hit it. And the map size at 160 x 100 kms isn`t big enough imo, planes doing 500+ will eat that, I would be quite happy if there was less detail and more area, it`s a flightsim, if the the planes are nicely modeled , pits accurate and the FM and DM are good I`m happy, if I want picture perfect scenery I`ll go mess with FSX. And an aside at least we`re allowed to cross compare products on this forum, unlike the other.

 

Ps I`ve got the A-10 and P-51 and put $40 down for this so it`s not a hater response, it`s a reasonable one.

Edited September 7, 2013 by BFsSmurfy

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

Going to ask these questions

 

1. How will MP work? Coops/servers? how many players in a mission.

2. How big is the map, ive heard 100/160km but is that just the detailed area with more less detailed map area around that, will there be a English coast?

3. Can Paypal be added to the ways to pledge?

[Bearcat]

Look guys... some of you need to tone down the inflammatory negativity and not so subtle sniping at each other. This is one reason why Jason originally forbade discussion on this subject here.. this kind of stuff.

 

So tone it down please. If you don't want to support the product then don't.. if you want to state your reasons then do.. but there is no need for the chest thumping or the put downs of developers or other members and their opinions.

[=CHN=Crash]

Posted Today, 13:43

 

 

 

=CHN=Crash: That's not the 3rd-party team's job.

---

 

 

^^ OK, but I will never buy a CFS where you can fly through trees, sry...

Some one only buy those, perhaps.

[ST_ami7b5]

Some one only buy those, perhaps.

 

OK, no prob with that

[=CHN=Crash]

Maybe some one had forgot that in real life, trees are NOT invulnerable. They can be destoried by bombs or a tank。 But we are talking about a flight sim's 3rd- party aircrafts and maps, not a Lumberjack sim. So the tree is not the key.

[=CHN=Crash]

Going to ask these questions

 

1. How will MP work? Coops/servers? how many players in a mission.

2. How big is the map, ive heard 100/160km but is that just the detailed area with more less detailed map area around that, will there be a English coast?

3. Can Paypal be added to the ways to pledge?

For Q2, I guess if it reaches the goal of flyable b17s, the coast of GB would be added.

[JG27_Chivas]

The English coastline was in part of a question I asked in the DCS forums, but  Luthier's answer to my post didn't address that part.   Airstarts would be a nonstarter for me, but I'm quite sure that airstarts would be a nonstarter for Oleg, Luthier, and the DCS development crew as well.

[steppenwolf]

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.

I think one day flight sims will eventually get there. This kind of 'ambient activity' programing does make me interested in seeing how GTA V pulls off their civilian population behavior.

[Mac_Messer]

Out from kickstarte I meant. Im sorry for you dear.

 

@Tommy - with me..its isnt who do I like...Im not sticking out from anybodys ar*e (like some) nor im in naybodys tent....just want to play a good simulator....we all know what it should have....at least basics....otherwise I would play some warhunder or simmilar arcade

 

BTW Im tired  of ppl who bitch about ppl who express their opinions freely, without agendas or BIASES and without sticking out from somebodys ar*e....If you dont like em dont comment....

 

The problem is that some people obviously have a problem that any game has Luthier`s name to it. Personal grudges are very unhealthy and should be dealt with accordingly.

[gavagai]

Ummm, Aces High had tress you collide with at least 10 years ago.

 

Guys, you cant call something "hardcore sim"  if you have ghost trees....specially since ROF and BOS (in the future) raised standard here regarding tree collision.....How the hell you can play any serious mission with ghost trees in a simulator..dont make me laugh......not that ROF engine doesnt have flaws but ghost trees are JOKE...in serious sims....I mean we saw Oleg and we heard it will be something special, DCS (serious player) is in bla bla...and I got exited....then....EDGE....has ghost trees W-T-F??? Its like you buy a car which looks like ferrari but its made of cheap plastic and can fall apart anytime....comedy

 

Im out

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

The kickstarter seems to have slowed down considerably after the first few days rush. 

I hope Luthier has something up his sleeve to show us soon to get things going again, plus he needs to calm peoples concerns over the map, trees and MP.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Furbs

[ATAG_Slipstream]

New video on Monday apparently.

[Sokol1]

 

 

Ummm, Aces High had tress you collide with at least 10 years ago.

 

Battleground Europe too, in and a big map and are ...Speetree. 

 

Sokol1

[dburne]

It has just been announced, and kickstarter just began - long way off from seeing what the finished product will look like.

[Feathered_IV]

Not that long.  They are saying they will complete the first stage in less time than it took to make the Aces Expansion Pack for Il-2FB.  Quite a daunting task when one thinks about it.

[ATAG_Slipstream]

They have DCS to work with.Is it much different to what the BoS team are trying to achieve in a short space of time?

There is a nice competition running at the ATAG forum for anyone who pledges. A set of MFG Crosswind rudder pedals...

[BFsSmurfy]

Can anyone shed any light on why the trees are such a problem for collisions, can`t every 5th tree in a group have a collision bubble or whatever its called, or a collision feature that has the map co-ordinates and height and if you enter that you collide with it. It would be nice to know why it`s such a problem to them, in Il2 the trees weren`t that realistic but that doesn`t bother me does it bother anyone else?, would you swap detailed trees with no collision for crappy trees with collision?, i`d prefer the latter. Monday will be interesting he posted once yesterday, we`ve seen that before. I wish them all the best but they need to do better on the forum, or am I being too harsh?. Why do we need such detailed maps? is it part of this "study sim" theory, doesn`t matter to me as long as it`s better than older titles that`s good enough for me, but 100 x 160 is a postage stamp. Good to see that open discussion of this is allowed here, mention BoS over there and a craptstorm develops.

[Mogster]

It seems that saying you'll produce incredibly detailed planes isn't enough. That'll attract a core of die hard flight sim fans but there just aren't enough of us. To back up the planes you need a mission generator or dynamic type campaigns, ground activity, gamey elements like squad and resource management.

 

Then there's the general confusion over what's available and the status of EDs WW2 content, this should have been hammered out before the KS went live, also when you offer the base game and lots of content for free then I cant see the incentive to contribute, thats a mistake imo. RRG have started this with very little to show it seems, the launch video looks amateurish at best and the in game stuff we've seen relys totally on DCS content.

 

I really want this to succeed but unless RRG have a trump card up their sleeve it looks like an uphill struggle from this point.

[Recon]

Great news from ATAG :

 

"ATAG initiative for DCS WW2"

 

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5635

 

win some MFG Crosswind rudder pedals and support DCS WW2  !!!!

[Matt]

Well, I gave DCS A-10C a shot yesterday. Quite amazing what they did there. Even though I felt more like a programmer than a pilot and so far I can barely do a proper startup procedure, forget about setting up weapons.

 

Anyway, it is very well done and very convincing. So I will pledge $40 and hope for the best.

[Bearcat]

The problem is that some people obviously have a problem that any game has Luthier`s name to it. Personal grudges are very unhealthy and should be dealt with accordingly.

... and more importantly ... not here...

[theOden]

Well, I gave DCS A-10C a shot yesterday. Quite amazing what they did there. Even though I felt more like a programmer than a pilot and so far I can barely do a proper startup procedure, forget about setting up weapons.

 

Anyway, it is very well done and very convincing. So I will pledge $40 and hope for the best.

 

Yes, the A-10C is an amazing procedure simulator. Maybe you should have gone for the P-51D instead?

[Matt]

I could've, but reasons why I went with the A-10 were that,

 

1. I was just curious how they implemented the TM Warthog (which they did superbly)

2. I haven't tried a modern military flightsim for 15 years I think

3. Managing the A-10 and flying the campaign seemed more interesting than flying the P-51

4. I get to fly the P-51 anyway, as long as this kick starter is successful

[BFsSmurfy]

Matt if you pre-order the premium of BoS you`ll be playing the alpha/beta some time in October.

[Matt]

I know, that's why i preordered premium back in July .

 

But until then, A-10 (and RoF) will keep me busy. Spend a few hours on A-10 today and now i'm finally understanding most of the controls. Becomes pretty simple after a while. Amazing attention to detail.

[BFsSmurfy]

I need to spend more time in the P51 I find it so different to the IL2 version, stuff that you could do easily in IL2 stalls it in DCS, guess the extra realism requires far more time to get the hang of. There`s going to be a whole lotta stalling if the new project is a success.

[Tektolnes]

As both BOS and DCS WW2 will be modelling high fidelity flight dynamics it should be interesting to see the reactions of the old IL-2 crowd. There'll be a lot of things which IL-2 was pretty forgiving over that they suddenly won't be able to get away with anymore. But being flight simmers they'll no doubt take it all in their stride calmly and there won't be any histrionics whatsover.

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

 .....But being flight simmers they'll no doubt take it all in their stride calmly and there won't be any histrionics whatsover.

 

 

[CrazySchmidt]

Personally, I hope it's succesful. The more options in this genre the better, plus it will help keep developers on their toes.

 

Cheers, CS.

[Bearcat]

Notice that the flaps are much slower as well.. It s definitely a different animal..

[71st_AH_Hooves]

For me its not about trees being collidable, its not about the number of aircraft.  Whats holding me back are the managers of the team.  I just cant see giving my money to anything that Ilya or Oleg have anything to do with.  They were both managers of CloD and that is what killed that product.  Bad management.  

 

  Its nothing personal against them, Im sure they are chums to talk to or be around, but all I have to show from them is failure.  Im sure the coders they have are talented. but bad management can tank any project no matter what it is.  

 

I wont be kicking in for this starter, but if they show that they can make something decent, ontime, and relatively bug free, Ill pick it up then.   

 

I find it hilarious that a large number of people are doubting BoS because of 1C, but not DCS:WWII for ILya and Oleg.  here is a hint 1C didn't code Clod.  They just just financed it, until its failure was to much to bear as a company business wise.   If people would listen to the truth I suspect there would be a much different tone about that new project.

 

My 2 cents.

[Bussard_x]

It is quite a surprise that Ilya Shevchenko and Oleg Maddox want to return to flghtsimming. Oleg left when the original

IL-2 was at it's height and Ilya had to stop after the CloD failure. I am not familiair with DCS, so I can not judge on this. From the pictures I have seen of the map I am not enthousiastic. Current BOS is more mine taste. And I will not pay money for a sim that might not come out. That is the difference with BOS, from which I pre-ordered the premium one.

[dburne]

While I certainly understand many of the sentiments expressed, I can't say that all I have seen from those guys is failure - certainly Cliffs would fit into that category - at least the initial release. IL2 and then FB and PF, I would say were far from failures. I mean IL2 pretty much set the bar for many, many years in a WWII combat sim.

 

I tend to be a glass half full kind of guy, so I am positive and hopeful for their new venture with ED - it does ease my mind somewhat that ED will be overseeing it - no way are they going to let a title release under their name, that is not up to their standards. And I am even way more positive at this point for BOS, and very excited,  after all we have seen much of what they have done to date, obviously it will live up to 777's standards, and ROF is a great sim.

 

But I sure understand folks on the fence, or want to take a wait and see position with this new affiliation with those guys and ED. I did contribute to the Kick Starter, namely to help support another possible WWII combat flight sim.

 

Good times guys, good times!

Edited September 8, 2013 by dburnette

[Tektolnes]

Its nothing personal against them, Im sure they are chums to talk to or be around, but all I have to show from them is failure.  Im sure the coders they have are talented. but bad management can tank any project no matter what it is.  

 

I wont be kicking in for this starter, but if they show that they can make something decent, ontime, and relatively bug free, Ill pick it up then.   

 

Yes that IL-2 that people are still playing 10 years later was a massive failure... you're being a bit unfair. For me with CloD they just tried to bite off too much and the project became unmanageable. This time around they just have to model the planes and the map. And the plane modelling is being done by Igor Tishin who did the P51. ED will also be reviewing and providing final sign-off on the quality. So overall the challenges are fewer and the guarantees that things will be done right are higher. Worth a punt any day of the week in my opinion.

 

Anyway you'll be able to try next year with 3 free flyables so you can't say fairer than that.