DCS

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I'm not sure Spitfire is available on steam, Normandy wont be for a long time. Overall do everything to avoid steam DCS. Too much trouble with it. 

[Bearfoot]

TL;DR -- yep, avoid buying through Steam, go direct through DCS. 

[LLv24_SukkaVR]

Can someone explain to be the Steam vs Non Steam thing with DCS?

 

Any BOS analogies are welcome.

 

I know that to access the betas for Normandy and some planes, you need a non-Steam account.

 

Does that mean that you have to buy the modules from their store? What about when they come out of beta? will you be able to play them on your steam account without double purchasing?

 

There isnt really any reason to use Steam version of DCS. It takes hours that updates are available in Steam. Once i was going to play DCS with my friend, it took like 2-3 hours for my friend before he could download the update which was very frustrating. And you cant activate modules bought from ED store in Steam, but you still can play them in Steam version so it doesnt really matter where you buy them. You buy it in ED store, launch DCS, log in and when you go to module section you can download the module and when you go play mission, game will ask for a key to activate the module. And you cant play 2.1 Normandy or NTTR in Steam.

Edited June 17, 2017 by NahkaSukka

[Feathered_IV]

Whatever time period you want, from c. 1939-ish to 1945-ish. With some creativity to overlook, e.g., 1940's era civilian cars hard-coded in parking lots, old-fashioned power/telephone lines, lack of high-tension power lines, etc., you could conceivably stretch it to maybe even the 60's or later.

 

BUT you (or the mission designer) will have to work at it.

 

Landscape damage/destruction has to be set through trigger zone effects. 

 

D-Day defenses set through various assets/objects (still in development).

 

Airfield ownership entirely configurable.

 

Thanks Bearfoot.  I've been looking around and don't seem to be able to find any DCS screenshots representing how the Normandy area really did appear at say, D-Day +5. 

 

[Sokol1]

TL;DR -- yep, avoid buying through Steam, go direct through DCS. 

 

 

I bough DCS planes in STEAM - due STEAM regional price policy this represent additional discount over the price in DCS site for some planes - and I can activate then in non-STEAM version of DCS World (the contrary is not valid).

 

Beta versions - common in DCSW - is not available in STEAM.

[Bearfoot]

Thanks Bearfoot.  I've been looking around and don't seem to be able to find any DCS screenshots representing how the Normandy area really did appear at say, D-Day +5. 

 

 

Hi Feathered,

 

Yep, that's because there isn't any . While there is supposed to be an official Spitfire campaign in the works, there has not been much other extensive full-production work going on with the map, official or grassroots. Folks are just flying around on simple A2A-heavy missions without too much effort at building up the atmosphere/theatre, and in all the ones I've seen Normandy looks very much like the idyllic pastoral paradise it was in 1938. Part of it is there's a lot of essential assets that are still in progress (e.g., there isn't even any period-correct AA, IIRC, let alone those beach obstacles). Furthermore, the map itself is still undergoing active development (next release promised for Wed), with some of the scripting required (e.g. grass airfields) not fully supported. I think it will be a long time (months?) before things stabilize enough for things to start emerging. And, even then, I don't think we are going to be seeing quite anything like you have in the photograph -- while I mentioned that you could trigger damage to the map objects, AFAIK, those are buildings and structures. I seem to recall Wags saying that deformation of the ground itself, as in trenches or bomb craters, are not going to be possible. So if you really need/want all this, I doubt DCS Normandy will ever quite satisfy! (EDIT: well, on second thought, given the incredible community map mod's that have emerged for Georgia over the last 10 years, transforming it to everything from far pine-and-snow-clad northern Europe to deserts to Southeast Asia/Vietnam in appearance, it's possible that over the next 10 years we may see the same for Normandy and somewhere there might be the battered and scoured terrain you want ...  so never say never  )

Edited June 18, 2017 by Bearfoot

[Sokol1]

[Jaws2002]

 

[Mastermariner]

 

Almost like in RL

 

Master

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Last evening combat on Storm of War server. Not much in terms of actual combat since there were only 2 Luftwaffe pilots but it gives a perspective on possibilities with good mission design and aircraft capable of fighting that high.

Light side:

 

Dark side:

[Lusekofte]

You have to think two steps ahead in your tactics and maneuvers to plan for this.

This is what is lacking in BOS

 

 

 

The need to cut your throttle whenever you drop below 180 mph makes for an incredibly frustrating flying experience at first but also an incredibly rewarding one later.

In any other game this for sure would have been frustrating, but this is exactly why I fly DCS, learning something every day.  I fly campaigns over and over again, since the chopper modules got fro 2 to 8 campaigns I do them in turn, Always try to keep the mission rating as close to 100% as possible, and survive. After doing a campaign once , I do not tolerate death, if that happened I go to start. Love it

Edited June 19, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Gambit21]

There's some potential there Hiro no doubt...on the other hand those clouds look absolutely awful.

I'll put that on the list of things that need to change before I'm on-board.

[Jaws2002]

There's some potential there Hiro no doubt...on the other hand those clouds look absolutely awful.

I'll put that on the list of things that need to change before I'm on-board.

 

 

I think clouds are one aspect that has been neglected in all flying games. Some more than others, but sadly, everyone is behind when it comes to clouds.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Jaws2002

[Thad]

I don't have anything from DCS on steam, buuuuuut.... I've heard many many many many many complaints about 'when will xyz be released on steam' etc etc. As I undertand things only go to steam when they are release, which usually means months, if not years after it actually comes out. K4 was 'released' late last year. I always got the impression steam was just for if you want to for some reason prolong the already ridiculously long wait it takes for DCS content to be released.

It's nothing to get steamed about.

[Gambit21]

I think clouds are one aspect that has been neglected in all flying games. Some more than others, but sadly, everyone is behind when it comes to clouds.

 

Most definitely.

Also I think the down-sampling of that video is making them look a little worse than they really are.

[Trooper117]

Last evening combat on Storm of War server. Not much in terms of actual combat since there were only 2 Luftwaffe pilots but it gives a perspective on possibilities with good mission design and aircraft capable of fighting that high.

Light side:

 

Dark side:

 

Good stuff!!!

[JG5_Zesphr]

 

 

 

 

 

RAZBAM's MiG-19 update. TBH it will be a pretty neat jet to fly and go into combat with as it's got the fuel endurance of an EE lighting and most of it's IRL kills guns not missiles

[JG4_Sputnik]

Spitfire Campaign by Bunyap is coming along nicely:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=151478&page=10

[Danziger]

VEAO isn't on the DCS forum anymore.

[Finkeren]

VEAO isn't on the DCS forum anymore.

They thrown in the towel?

[Danziger]

According to bookface TFC and ED didn't renew their contract and told them to seek 3rd party status again when the product is closer to a release state.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

What are you on about mate ? I can still see their section on forums ?

Mind posting links to your findings ?

 

Found it: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3177944&postcount=24

Edited June 25, 2017 by =LD=Hiromachi

[Monostripezebra]

I reasonably good south east asia map for the time of the vietnam conflict would be awesome....  but then we would need some A4s, A6s and A7s as well as the F4

 

 

 

 

 

 

RAZBAM's MiG-19 update. TBH it will be a pretty neat jet to fly and go into combat with as it's got the fuel endurance of an EE lighting and most of it's IRL kills guns not missiles

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I do not believe any of the 3rd parties has time and money to make map. Hell, even ED here relied on outsourcing using some Chinese company to develop Normandy for them. 

[Rolling_Thunder]

I do not believe any of the 3rd parties has time and money to make map. Hell, even ED here relied on outsourcing using some Chinese company to develop Normandy for them.

Thats why they need to release the map making SDK and let the community, with passion for the genre, fill in. Otherwise the platform, in its current state will never reach it's full potential. Edited June 25, 2017 by Rolling_Thunder

[9./JG27golani79]

Thats why they need to release the map making SDK and let the community, with passion for the genre, fill in. Otherwise the platform, in its current state will never reach it's full potential.

 

As far as I know they only wanna give the map SDK to 3rd party devs ... which in my opinion is the wrong decision.

[Rolling_Thunder]

As far as I know they only wanna give the map SDK to 3rd party devs ... which in my opinion is the wrong decision.

Those that can prove they are capable of making a map will be given the SDK. Catch 22. Its a shame, for those folk who paid for certain modules, that the same restrictions were not placed on those 3rd parties wishing to produce aircraft.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Thats why they need to release the map making SDK and let the community, with passion for the genre, fill in. Otherwise the platform, in its current state will never reach it's full potential.

From what I've heard tools for map making are primitive and archaic, takes tremendous amount of time to develop things. NTTR and Normandy kind of confirm that. I doubt community could pile up enough organization, time and money to develop anything that way. 

 

ED themselves did not produce recent map but someone for them did that. So dont expect "community" to develop anything on such scale. It's not Il-2 1946. 

[Rolling_Thunder]

From what I've heard tools for map making are primitive and archaic, takes tremendous amount of time to develop things. NTTR and Normandy kind of confirm that. I doubt community could pile up enough organization, time and money to develop anything that way.

 

ED themselves did not produce recent map but someone for them did that. So dont expect "community" to develop anything on such scale. It's not Il-2 1946.

We'll have to take their word for ir wont we. We will never know how the "community" would do as they will never get the opportunity to show what can be accomplished with a little bit of dedication and passion.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I'm not taking their word. I'm taking my knowledge of this business in conditions created by ED. 

[Jaws2002]

From what I've heard tools for map making are primitive and archaic, takes tremendous amount of time to develop things. NTTR and Normandy kind of confirm that. I doubt community could pile up enough organization, time and money to develop anything that way. 

 

ED themselves did not produce recent map but someone for them did that. So dont expect "community" to develop anything on such scale. It's not Il-2 1946. 

 

 

Many parts of their game are archaic.

 Just look at how they handle skins. You need coding lessons to learn how to add a bloody skin into the game. 

 

[Rolling_Thunder]

ED sat on Normandy for years while they juggled their workforce between unfinished modules. Prioritizing one thing then the next. They handed over Normandys development and looky looky its been released. All it takes is some dedication to the project at hand. And not to bounce between one module and the next

Edited June 25, 2017 by Rolling_Thunder

[BeastyBaiter]

ED is interested in making money, not creating a great game. For them it makes more sense to hoard all the tools, forcing us to buy whatever they manage to eventually release if we want anything new for it. That's also completely normal for a business, BoX is done the same way. The only difference is we get new content for BoX a hell of a lot faster than we do for DCS. As for VEAO getting booted, better late than never. ED should have given that team the axe long ago. They made far too many unrealistic promises followed by poor excuses for why they couldn't get anything done. It's one thing to struggle and miss a deadline, but that team would miss the deadline, blame someone else for it and then add a new project to their stack all in the same sentence. And they did that every few months for several years. I'm shocked ED put up with them for so long, they have far more patience for that kind of thing than I do.

[ZachariasX]

One thing the world could learn from FSX is that all tat really matters is a great SDK for a sim that you should give to the world and their dog. We, clients are perfectly able to tell a good scenery/aircraft module from a bad one.

 

It made FSX still beeing here with us, after all these years. The old IL2 lingered on because other people started working on it no matter how questionable their legal position might have been. It will take the 64 bit code *plus backwad compatibility* for any GA sim to pass beyond FSX. This has been done with the recent P3D v4 and Dovetails new sim.

 

Not doing so will send a sim to die. The convenience of complete control can be handy, but it is the guarantee of the death of a game once a publisher loses interesst. See RoF. Still a truly great game. But it hit its glass ceiling. Competition (from the same devs) moved on. At least, 777 has a viable plan how they tackle the monumental task of improving their current sim with a consistent strategy. ED appears like a bunch of modders that may make great things, but each does his own. If you do it like that, like in FSX, I'd say you better have the whole world helping you.

Edited June 25, 2017 by ZachariasX

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

ED is interested in making money, not creating a great game. For them it makes more sense to hoard all the tools, forcing us to buy whatever they manage to eventually release if we want anything new for it. That's also completely normal for a business, BoX is done the same way. The only difference is we get new content for BoX a hell of a lot faster than we do for DCS.

Bullsh*t, its exactly the reason why things here, in War Thunder and other products roll fast and properly while in DCS everyone starting from ED and ending on skinmaking community struggles since they have archaic tools and have to code plenty of stuff step by step. 

You need solid foundations to keep pumping out content at reasonable pace. And you need to update those tools.  

 

 

 As for VEAO getting booted, better late than never. ED should have given that team the axe long ago. They made far too many unrealistic promises followed by poor excuses for why they couldn't get anything done. It's one thing to struggle and miss a deadline, but that team would miss the deadline, blame someone else for it and then add a new project to their stack all in the same sentence. And they did that every few months for several years. I'm shocked ED put up with them for so long, they have far more patience for that kind of thing than I do.

VEAO made plenty of mistakes, but to put blame entirely on them is not fair. Think for a sec how and why things are organized with 3rd parties and maybe you will figure whats wrong for real.

 

 

 

At least, 777 has a viable plan how they tackle the monumental task of improving their current sim with a consistent strategy.

From all the flight sims around, I'd say that guys are handling their business in the most professional manner. 

[BeastyBaiter]

Bullsh*t, its exactly the reason why things here, in War Thunder and other products roll fast and properly while in DCS everyone starting from ED and ending on skinmaking community struggles since they have archaic tools and have to code plenty of stuff step by step. 

You need solid foundations to keep pumping out content at reasonable pace. And you need to update those tools. 

 

VEAO made plenty of mistakes, but to put blame entirely on them is not fair. Think for a sec how and why things are organized with 3rd parties and maybe you will figure whats wrong for real.

 

 

 

From all the flight sims around, I'd say that guys are handling their business in the most professional manner. 

 

I think you greatly misread what I wrote in regards to public sdk's (lack of) in DCS vs BoX. I was only speaking of the business model and the reasoning for not releasing map map making tools. I was not saying anything about ED's internal problems.

 

For VEAO, yes, things do suck for 3rd parties there. ED's code is a mess going by rumor and what we can see in LUA files, but that's an issue all the 3rd parties and ED itself face. What sets VEAO apart from the others is their attitude about it. Basically every module ever made for DCS has been horribly behind schedule, that's normal there. What is not normal is for the CEO of a third party to go on ED's forums every few months and publicly blame ED for what is clearly their own incompetence most of the time. That doesn't mean ED never makes changes that break third party modules, it's happened a few times. But it doesn't happen on the level VEAO would have you believe. How do I know? Every time they've claimed this, all the other third party modules still worked fine. It was only VEAO having problems with it. In any case, I'm not happy we potentially have 1 fewer developer but it had to be done. I'm also not sure they got dumped completely. It looks more like they simply lost the rights to do the P-40F, Typhoon and basically all their other upcoming projects. The Hawk may still be in development and they may get new (or old) projects accepted again, if they can show they can actually deliver something other than excuses. But that's just speculation on my part. We really don't have much to go on at the moment.

Edited June 25, 2017 by BeastyBaiter

[Urra]

I think you greatly misread what I wrote in regards to public sdk's (lack of) in DCS vs BoX. I was only speaking of the business model and the reasoning for not releasing map map making tools. I was not saying anything about ED's internal problems.

 

For VEAO, yes, things do suck for 3rd parties there. ED's code is a mess going by rumor and what we can see in LUA files, but that's an issue all the 3rd parties and ED itself face. What sets VEAO apart from the others is their attitude about it. Basically every module ever made for DCS has been horribly behind schedule, that's normal there. What is not normal is for the CEO of a third party to go on ED's forums every few months and publicly blame ED for what is clearly their own incompetence most of the time. That doesn't mean ED never makes changes that break third party modules, it's happened a few times. But it doesn't happen on the level VEAO would have you believe. How do I know? Every time they've claimed this, all the other third party modules still worked fine. It was only VEAO having problems with it. In any case, I'm not happy we potentially have 1 fewer developer but it had to be done. I'm also not sure they got dumped completely. It looks more like they simply lost the rights to do the P-40F, Typhoon and basically all their other upcoming projects. The Hawk may still be in development and they may get new (or old) projects accepted again, if they can show they can actually deliver something other than excuses. But that's just speculation on my part. We really don't have much to go on at the moment.

So they are basically forced to give refunds to all preorders for P40 at this point?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Thing that disappoints me the most are numbers, community is right now split - jet fans are stuck with 1.5 version (NTTR was never really popular in multiplayer community) while all ww2 moved to 2.1. People complained here when server number were not encouraging, but I find DCS even more problematic. There is a couple of open ww2 servers only, most popular being ACG and Burning Skies. Latter one at peaks has around 30 people online, but for the most part you will have less than 20 and its never ending process of finding each other. It's just too little and too random to develop any significant mission and all that happens is an air quake. 

 

Storm of War fixes that but events are not happening frequently yet.

 

The other thing I wish that would be addressed is replay function. Currently replay files are mostly corrupted and there is no way of extracting whole gameplayes, some sequences yes, but the longer game was the higher probability that later events will be displayed incorrectly. I am still uncomfortable with recording at the same time as I'm flying online since it would steal some frames which I need to be as high as possible.

[9./JG27MAD-MM]

With VEAO Dcs lost the last developer how was intressted in building WW2 Moduls staff, never sure VEAO was able at some time bring a solid Module but with no releases and bad PR was sooner or later happen to them.

Funny thing with Normandy release the Player Numbers droped even more down in the MP environment.

Still like the DCS WW2 Idear but with substantial content Missing for something like WOL and the endless waiting for Bug fixing Assett Pack and releasing of new Moduls seem's not in favour of the most Player.

[ZachariasX]

...[snipp]...

 

 

From all the flight sims around, I'd say that guys are handling their business in the most professional manner. 

 

The last thing I wanted to do is putting the professionalism of 777 into question. All I'm saying there is a high price to be paid for keeping everything under seal for oneself. Diversity vs. control. Both has pros and cons. A price to be paid for maintaining tight control is what we are seeing (not) happening with RoF. Even tough I am very grateful for the latest skinpack, that doesn't change the general situation. Now compare that with what happened to FSX once MS lost interest in it (and even sold it!).

 

One can debate however whether this is a price mainly paid by the consumer and not by the publisher, therefore there being a good economical reason leaving us in the dump once there is a better alternative.