Jump to content
LuseKofte

DCS news

Recommended Posts

I am pretty sure I will enjoy it. Bought it today. For me much more interesting than the K4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

I am pretty sure I will enjoy it. Bought it today. For me much more interesting than the K4

 

 

Just to be clear....I'm not talking down about the module or the people who will buy it.  I think it's great that ED continues to produce aircraft modules and I'm glad we have another option for our combat simulation addictions.  I'm just not that interested in this particular module at this time.  I have not yet bought the Ju52 for IL2 yet for similar reasons, yet do not think poorly of anyone who has.  Have fun and fly and fight in what you want! :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

With the I-16 ED just once more proves that they have no vision where they're going or trying to go, other than compiling a complete clusterduck of half-finished scenarios.

 

It surely is a nice airplane for itself, but that's exactly the issue there: It's useless.

 

It was developed by a 3rd party as a labor of love; OcotpusG.  It was never in ED's "scenario". This guy has been working on it for about 4 years.

 

I flew it around for an hour today. I really like it. She's fun, as is the BoX I-16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The model itself looks really good. It would be awesome if our I16 and earlier planes could get improvements in texturing and higher poly count like the latest planes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the future of film making. That has got to be the best movie I have seen in ages. These guys are right up there with Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Danziger said:

The model itself looks really good. It would be awesome if our I16 and earlier planes could get improvements in texturing and higher poly count like the latest planes. 

Jason said we have 40+ planes to update, and we really got it(P-47D,K-4,F-2,spit mkIX etc...)
I hope 4K cockpit textures &  higher poly count  will be the next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does M-63 engine emit enough heat to be locked by heat seeking missiles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Brano said:

Does M-63 engine emit enough heat to be locked by heat seeking missiles?

Artistic freedom from ED?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As promised, my first impressions of DCS WWII compared to IL2. Sorry if its too long, I wasn't sure wether i should paste it here or link to a google doc.

 

Disclaimer

These are my first impressions and comparisons to IL2, it's not meant to be a review. It comes with all my assumptions and preferences which I’ll try to explicitly state when possible.

 

I decided to post my early thoughts because sometimes the first impression capture the differences best, and over time you stop noticing certain things as you get used to them.

 

I’m biased towards IL2, it’s been my sim of choice for years, I’ve played for hundreds of hours, I’ve created and shared many SP missions, two campaigns and a few skins. On the other hand, I’ve attempted to learn various DCS planes but I just never enjoy the endless list of things to memorize which can be hard to pick back up after a break. I do not enjoy clickpits, I like to map everything (or as much as possible) to my HOTAS.

 

I will be mixing different products below, it’s hard to speak of each DCS WWII product separately when playing a campaign mission you are using four separate purchases (Campaign, plane, wwii assets, Normandy map).

Here we go:

 

DCS POSITIVES:

+++ The game’s lighting seems more natural, probably because it’s using Physically Based Rendering (PBR). The lighting looks better and has a positive effect on the skins and external textures that might not be higher fidelity than the 4K textures in IL2 but give a different feel.

+++ The cockpit textures have higher resolutions than in IL2, which is very welcome when you use the gauges and instruments. I’ve recently started using more instruments in IL2, moving away from technochat and my enjoyment has increased substantially. I’d love to see higher cockpit texture resolutions implemented in IL2  as well as the return of the gauge glass reflections (that were practically removed from BOS instead of just tuning them down). I know there is a mod for higher res cockipts.

++ I really like certain engine sounds in DCS, particularly the sputtering when you cut the throttle in the Spitfire and the external (F2) sound of the Spitfire is also well done. Having said that not all sounds are perfect (K4) but the two mentioned stood out for me.

+ Bomb explosion effects are well done, the explosion smoke and debris seems more fluid than in IL2.

+ Airfields are bigger and more interesting than the eastern front ones. I'm really looking forward to Bodenplatte map and the new airfield layouts but in the meantime we have very dull airfield layouts and textures.

+ The WWII assets are very very detailed, they are not cheap but they definitely put some work into them.

+ Wingmen keep up with you very well. They are not using the same FM as the player but to be honest I don’t mind it, I’d rather see them form up and keep up correctly. However this has negative implications as noted in the negatives section. Based on a recent DD from IL2, it seems like we will get some AI improvements including formations too.

+ Large formations of planes perform pretty well. The third mission of the Big Show campaign has tons of units and you don’t really see the performance hit other than when using time acceleration. I wasn’t strictly measuring fps, but the gameplay did not feel laggy on my system (i7 7700K, 16GB DDR4, Samsung M.2 SSD, GTX 1080Ti)

BgH0uKlRWwsbOHLV8bBfdXj9d6VsW6tsyZlqDGMCZ4WwSoJhjs2MIx6FYKBqrBGHutWIw0bNlaI5DRBJLjaPlZhwNkXW0ebMYZbXKOspzTNLIP8Gq6kvwgqnFDicizt087L0ySE0

+ Being able to turn on/off the gun safety switch and the gunsight illumination. It would be a big plus to add these to IL2. It might not be a study sim but it is a combat sim after all.

+ Head movements using TrackIR are more fluid, there is more room to move around and it adds to immersion. IL2 seems to be more limited and a higher tendency to stick to the center/gunsight view, which is helpful for combat but not as immersive. I never had an issue with how IL2 handled this but after experiencing DCS I’d say a little more flexibility would be better.

+ Decals with different markings/numbers provide realistic skins, and again, helps with immersion.

 

DCS NEGATIVES:

--- The most obvious one is that the price for the content is very high. Purchasing the Normandy Map and WWII assets is almost sinful, in my opinion they should come when you purchase one of the WWII planes.

--- VR is pretty bad at the moment using HTC Vive. The visual quality goes down a lot and the warping caused by the prop is truly a dealbreaker. I don’t get sick with VR but that warping will make you want to stop playing after 5 min. IL2 is much better in this regard and the performance is also much better in IL2. On a monitor each sim has a different feel (my guess is that the FOV angle is different) but in VR both cockpits look identical.

-- The Spitfire FM is strange. I’m not a real life pilot and I have not flown a real Spitfire but the FM is not believable in specific scenarios. I know the Spit was known to be sensitive to inputs, especially elevator but the DCS FM turns the Spitfire into a weightless kite floating in the wind. It does not feel like a powerful machine that is flying at high speeds (and therefore some inertia/momentum [not sure which is the right term] is expected even with inputs). Additionally you can take off in just (what it feels like) under a hundred feet at full throttle which is a bit bizarre. The rest of the FM for the Spit is fine. I’ve flown the P51 a bit less but I have not experienced this issue, the  P51 FM feels pretty solid.

-- DM is subpar. During the campaign most enemies fall down with stopped engines. I was also able to fully control the spit with both wingtips and ailerons missing.

sEJ8cR49Hpqz_yxsNhT72hQOFh4ava7m_zDks79lws5z-oE3teJCKAID-b2JAordIH4pak0_VtslKqQqxmuFya6JJOBCl86T8JK-TcgOr_tohdOdfyIZJaFOPvAu0laXZVnRs9wv

 

- The engine responds too quickly to RPM and throttle changes. The changes feel almost instantaneous, I feel like something similar to IL2 would be more realistic.

- In-cockpit shadows are very jaggy. IL2 shadows are much sharper and less distracting.

- I don’t have a fully formed opinion on DCS WWII AI but the amount of times my wingmen have been shooting at my target over my shoulder and stealing my kills is insane. That needs to be addressed.it doesnt help that your wingmen can magically catch up with you, they are always there to steal the kill.

- Gun fire animations (muzzle flash) are subpar, probably worse than in IL2 1946. It’s not a big deal but given how detailed everything else is, it really breaks immersion.

- Campaign menus are TERRIBLE. There are almost no options. You literally cannot select the mission you want to play, there is only an “OK” button that will automatically take you to the next mission. If you want to replay a mission you have to modify some lua files stored in the game folders.

- There is no customization of loadouts in the campaign.

- Normandy Map has empty areas with no trees and blocky textures (e.g. mission 3 of the Big Show campaign)

Xgu5925yHfR0-vZ6fdp7QKmrCLKV-fkVlTbsAcd--nUpu59wflopoN8l4o1FnuuGJAkpH2EBJLcDckwUGNRV2oHNWWY1ntc7zCDa-AaE6DjHzrTgY1-GK_Kqjg4-hzJN8QxMrKU2

- AI FM is definitely simplified and I’ve seen some small glitches where the AI will slide backwards like a spaceship in order to align with the formation.

- you can only fight against 109 K4 and 190 D9 in the Spitfire campaign as those are the german planes in game.

 

Verdict:

 

There are good things to say about both. If budget is not a problem i would definitely recommend getting both. There are things to enjoy in both sims that the other does not offer. If budget is an important factor, IL2 gives you much more for less money. Although IL2 does not have a clickpit, most switches and procedures are animated. On top of that, IL2 will provide a coherent package of map/planes/campaign while DCS just does not make much sense (they just released the i16, wtf?)

  • Like 6
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey,

 

thanks for the good information. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jade_Monkey said:

 -- DM is subpar. During the campaign most enemies fall down with stopped engines. I was also able to fully control the spit with both wingtips and ailerons missing.

 

Engines which are cooled by a pressurized liquids could seize under 30s after getting coolant leak. That's probably realistic you got that many dead props.

The Normandy map is mediocre at best; should be added as a bonus to WW2 assets pack, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the list.

The biggest minus for DCS for me is the performance.

Both SP and MP are very hampered with lags, with 8GB Ram and not fun because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me actually:

WW2: IL-2

After WW2: DCS

 

I bought the DCS Normandy map on a sale, just for soppurting them, maybe in some years we'll have something solid on DCS for WWII ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, [N.O.G.F]Leon_Portier said:

I agree with the list.

The biggest minus for DCS for me is the performance.

Both SP and MP are very hampered with lags, with 8GB Ram and not fun because of it.

They recommend 32 gb ram. You can make do with 16. 8 must be difficult. 

For me DCS campaigns MI8 in particular is best campaign experience I ever had. 

DCS saved my interest in sims for a while. 

But  of course the software , choose of modules and AI gets legitimate critique. 

Hard to discuss what the best game in genre is when you have  to choose from 4 old and one semi new cfs. It is more like make do. 

I tend to be more patient with DCS others with GB

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, =SFF=_cercataa said:

For me actually:

WW2: IL-2

After WW2: DCS

 

I bought the DCS Normandy map on a sale, just for soppurting them, maybe in some years we'll have something solid on DCS for WWII ...

While i decieded to get F14 to learn something about modern world than stuck in ww2 mentality :P i have hard time supporting DCS devs... especially when it comes to ww2 (i really want to get fw190 now and ju87 when it's done (or if it's done) but then i realise that apart from learning the plane which is fun and i wish il2 had this 100% detailed fully interactive cockpits, that's all you can get from DCS :mellow: their plan is a mess. Found topic on forum with planes in development and 90% or so is british/american. What are they going to fight aganst? Spam of bf109k4 and dora? Now there is iwo jima map in development while normandy is a joke and feels like something based on normandy than actual map of that region. Historical accuracity is non existing as well. 

 

DCS could be one of the best sims if they had a plan and focus on something instead of letting 3rd paty devs make whatever they want and just sell it. I16 is a proof. I know it was suppose to be a mod but it's not anymore. They sell a plane that has no map to fly on, no enemies to fight. It's great in what i said before, learning it and having fun in cockpit but apart from that? MP maybe. But it's just another dlc that makes no sense, fans will buy it, have fun for a while, youtubers will make some videos and then it will be gone. Shame really. Still keeping dora on my wishlist but can't force myself to buy it at current state of this sim.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, Normandy map is stamped with "Made in PRC".

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

Engines which are cooled by a pressurized liquids could seize under 30s after getting coolant leak. That's probably realistic you got that many dead props.

 

The Normandy map is mediocre at best; should be added as a bonus to WW2 assets pack, really.

 

I dont know if it's realistic or not but I'm not used to seeing so many planes just falling from the sky with engines stopped and zero smoke. It was shocking to see how frequency that was during my missions.

 

Yeah the map is mediocre, looks good in some places and horrible in others. It's very inconsistent in that aspect. Also trees look ok in a monitor but VR they look pretty bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

I dont know if it's realistic or not but I'm not used to seeing so many planes just falling from the sky with engines stopped and zero smoke. It was shocking to see how frequency that was during my missions.

 

Yeah the map is mediocre, looks good in some places and horrible in others. It's very inconsistent in that aspect. Also trees look ok in a monitor but VR they look pretty bad.

Review i found on steam about normandy map:

image.png.889a723086f5d1b16f45ef3dd6e60c0c.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you operate landing gear retraction in I-16? Do you have to make circles with mouse?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Brano said:

Does M-63 engine emit enough heat to be locked by heat seeking missiles?

Easy enough with 70s-later IR missile, probably even with Gar-8 at closeish distance.

EGT of a high power radial is still 450-700 C

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Brano said:

How do you operate landing gear retraction in I-16? Do you have to make circles with mouse?

I have maped the handkrank to a 2 way switch on the Warthog Throttle. Works just fine. 

They modeled the gear mechanism in a truly awesome way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Brano said:

Does M-63 engine emit enough heat to be locked by heat seeking missiles? 

With somewhat decent seekers, even on a hot day you can detect and track a moped as far as you can see it. On a coldish day you can detect a cow in a field, but it is difficult to track after uncaging the seeker. (Amazing what you have time for at some points in your life.) It is very, very easy to track aircraft with piston engines. They need to be right against the sun to preclude aim. But then you can't see them yourself either.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Brano said:

IIRC, Normandy map is stamped with "Made in PRC".

 

It was made by the same team behind our Moscow map, the "remastering" of FC planes, the U-2VS , and the future Arras map.

If there are any conclusions to arrive at, they certainly are way less superficial.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected then. I thought I red somewhere it was made by chinese. They have interesting projects on their website. Project Victory looks familiar. City of Moscow from 1941. Looks like rendering in CLOD engine 🤔

https://ugra-media.ru/2019/proekt-pobeda/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Brano said:

I stand corrected then. I thought I red somewhere it was made by chinese. They have interesting projects on their website. Project Victory looks familiar. City of Moscow from 1941. Looks like rendering in CLOD engine 🤔

https://ugra-media.ru/2019/proekt-pobeda/

 

CloD was planned to expand to the eastern front. You may have missed the debate about the assets that BoS "inherited" - they are easy to recognize, if you look closely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/10/2019 at 10:41 AM, Picchio said:

 

It was made by the same team behind our Moscow map, the "remastering" of FC planes, the U-2VS , and the future Arras map.

If there are any conclusions to arrive at, they certainly are way less superficial.

 

 

Normandy and WWII planes were finished by them and ED, but it was started by someone else, they abandoned the project, and because some people already bought it on Early Access, ED hired Ugra-Media to finish it.

Ugra-Media makes much better maps if it's enterely their project.

 

Initial Project:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/508681281/dcs-wwii-europe-1944?lang=es

 

And RRG Studios is in fact from PRC.

 

 

Edited by =SFF=_cercataa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Brano said:

I stand corrected then. I thought I red somewhere it was made by chinese. They have interesting projects on their website. Project Victory looks familiar. City of Moscow from 1941. Looks like rendering in CLOD engine 🤔

https://ugra-media.ru/2019/proekt-pobeda/

Like he said, Moscow was suppose to be expansion for CloD but it was canceled and new project Battle of... was started instead. Shame that they did not do Moscow before that happend :P would be fun to be able to fly over it.

 

37 minutes ago, =SFF=_cercataa said:

"I want to make flight sims great again" hehe sounds fimiliar.

 

Never heard about this but from kickstarter video it says "RRG studios, Eagle Dynamics, Thhe Fighter Collection presents" so ED was involved in this from the start. Anyway i think it's better to start over, at least with map than choose much cheaper solution and work on already bad foundations. After all this map is for sale so they are making money on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, InProgress said:

Never heard about this but from kickstarter video it says "RRG studios, Eagle Dynamics, Thhe Fighter Collection presents" so ED was involved in this from the start.

 

Of course they were involved, for making something on DCS you need their aproval, it happens on every 3rd party module.

If not, you'll not have the tools for it.

 

But it happened something similar to the Hawk and Veao ...

Edited by =SFF=_cercataa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =SFF=_cercataa said:

 

Of course they were involved, for making something on DCS you need their aproval, it happens on every 3rd party module.

If not, you'll not have the tools for it.

 

But it happened something similar to the Hawk and Veao ...

Nothing similar. ED "took over" the WW2 kickstarter because they were partners. They didn't take over the hawk and VEAO, even though "some people already bought it", because they werent partners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no mention about CLOD. Project Victory was ordered at Ugra-Media by Ministry of Education and Sience of Russian Federation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brano said:

There is no mention about CLOD. Project Victory was ordered at Ugra-Media by Ministry of Education and Sience of Russian Federation.

 

Yes not mention, but in Ugra-media page this screen is from CloD canceled expansion MMO "Moscow"* , supposedly Luthier's own attempt in make a... "War Thunder". 😀



CloD FMB

risunok3-1024x641.jpg



CloD Tiger Moth

risunok15-1024x640.jpg

 

* Now all this looks... old, is almost 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That leatherneck FB page has some interesting news today.

60230452_2270083506547648_153732324226236416_o.jpg

Edited by Sharpe43

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be mean. I'm sure that a DCS recreation of the massed battles between Fw-190 Ds and Corsairs over the Strait of Hormuz will be entirely authentic.

 

Seriously though, nice looking plane, and I'm sure some will get enjoyment out of it, but a bit more effort towards creating some sort of historical consistency would have done a great deal towards attracting new buyers. As it stands, I've entirely lost interest in DCS WW2 content.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

Ah yes, the iconic sight of corsairs escorting B17s. Can't wait to recreate those battles.

 

Just another chapter in Disjointed Combat Simulator.

 

EDIT: now I see the next plane a bunch of people are pining for is the An-2 because (in one person's words) "it definetly could be one and can act like one" (meaning a WWII plane).

 

🙄

Edited by LukeFF
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...