DCS

[Dutchvdm]

From what i understand is that the new P-51 will be an older model with an older gunsight.

 

Grtz M

[Danziger]

I think they want to downgrade the P51 to fit the Normandy map and people don't like it because of K4 and D9.

[Dutchvdm]

I think they want to downgrade the P51 to fit the Normandy map and people don't like it because of K4 and D9.

 

And some people still claim that making random planes without a historical set doesn't cause problems...

 

Grt M

[Solty]

I think they want to downgrade the P51 to fit the Normandy map and people don't like it because of K4 and D9.

Exactly that. D9, K4 and Me262 never flew over Normandy, lets "fix" that by changing P-51D model to fit Normandy. Afterall they will add G6 and A8 as AI planes

 

But no info on new ammo or higher power settings...

[MiloMorai]

Was/is there a performance difference between the 2 models of the P-51?

[Lusekofte]

 

 

I think they want to downgrade the P51 to fit the Normandy map and people don't like it because of K4 and D9.

Well I do understand that point, because of the K4 and Dora historical has nothing to do with Normandy and D day, you cannot use this map historical with the planes we got anyway. You have to use it as a general map in late 44 and 45 

[SeaW0lf]

It is really a difficult task to understand how they do it. It sounds almost on purpose. It explains why the WWII section of the forum and the servers are virtually empty.

 

I'm also curious to know the differences in between the latest model and the Normandy version of the P-51.

 

For the time being, this is irrelevant, since I can't fly over there with the current visibility issues -- a trend that is lingering since I bought my first module in 2014. But I sure would appreciate to have an unbiased setting if I ever get conditions to play it.

[Guest deleted@1562]

DCS WW2 is a mess and will stay that way for a long time.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I dont understand what they are trying to achieve. They have created this situation themselves, then they've decided to ignore or at best negate community pleas to provide proper ammunition for M2s, higher boost ratings and stuff like that ... any hint regarding balance was rapidly negated by forum supporters as they claim true simulation cannot and should not be balanced. So here I am : https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25533-dcs-news/?p=490003 waiting for another Friday/Saturday to have at least 10 people online flying. 

 

On a sidenote I've recently purchased F-86 on a discount and after flying it for a couple of hours... wow, its so damn different from MiG-15. But those two seem to be the best and most balanced set of machines in DCS. Yet completely irrelevant due to absence of coherent environment...

[THERION]

DCS WW2 is a mess and will stay that way for a long time.

 

I think it is the biggest mistake they've done - IMHO it is a bad idea to mix respectively mess around with to flying areas, meaning prop and jet area - as we say in Swiss German "S'het weder Häng no Füess!"

(It hasn't hands nor feet) and makes no sense for me.

 

They should keep it up with jets and copters.

 

Cheers

[Finkeren]

I'll just never understand why Luthier's team originally settled on that particular combination of planes and map. You can forgive ED for not being able to fuse those leftover parts together in a coherent manner, but what were the original team members thinking? What was the reasoning behind this? How was it supposed to create a historically accurate environment?

[ZachariasX]

I'll just never understand why Luthier's team originally settled on that particular combination of planes and map. You can forgive ED for not being able to fuse those leftover parts together in a coherent manner, but what were the original team members thinking? What was the reasoning behind this? How was it supposed to create a historically accurate environment?

"D-Day Map", if you're a sales rep you like that one most. Plus, peeps in general prefer the most powerful plane types. Late war stuff in WWII sims as well as in RoF. They even like to be dragged into '46 crap, just to get planes with more power that never saw service.

 

I guess they just wanted to cater those kind of people, in effect serving none.

 

Downgrading the Mustang... what are they smoking? If you have a proper scenario, then you use the corresponding plane sets, no matter how lopsided they would be. But if you have no setting, the least you can do is provide a fair fight. I really like their Vegas map, as there *everything is appropriate*, should one care for such.

[DD_Arthur]

What was the reasoning behind this?

 

 

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/508681281/dcs-wwii-europe-1944

[Finkeren]

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/508681281/dcs-wwii-europe-1944

It's not like I never read the KS material back then. I followed the project with some interest and really hoped that it would turn out well (didn't have much faith though and fortunately I didn't end up backing it - If I had, I would still be bashing that game to no end)

 

To me, what always rubbed me the wrong way was this sentence, which was repeated in some form over and over again in the early announcements:

 

"Built by industry veterans with the same approach that made the famous flight sims of the past great"

 

Picking a plane set and a map that didn't fit each other showed me, that the team had absolutely no idea what actually made the flight sims of the past (and IL-2 in particular) great: The possibility to recreate historical or historically plausible scenarios that emulate actual WW2 air battles. Literally every single successful WW2 CFS has had a set of planes and maps that fit together in a historic context. The fact that they overlooked this still boggles my mind.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Finkeren

[Gambit21]

It is mind-boggling.

I've even tried to talk myself/motivate myself into spending some time with it, trying to find some plausible path/plane so that I could glean some enjoyment from the product.

Oh look...a MiG 15...nice! Oops, no Korea. Oooh...a Huey! Cool...oops no Vietnam (should I fly it over WWII Normandy? Ummm...no)

Over and over.

 

Pretty much unless I want F15/Red Flag scenario over Nevada (which I'll admit does seem a bit enticing) I have no interest.

Even then...that's one campaign.

 

Now I look at the IL2 Kuban landscape, and it's so much nicer than DCS Normandy...I'm getting to the point where DCS is a lost cause for me personally.

Especially with PTO on the way for IL2.

[THERION]

It is mind-boggling.

I've even tried to talk myself/motivate myself into spending some time with it, trying to find some plausible path/plane so that I could glean some enjoyment from the product.

Oh look...a MiG 15...nice! Oops, no Korea. Oooh...a Huey! Cool...oops no Vietnam (should I fly it over WWII Normandy? Ummm...no)

Over and over.

 

Pretty much unless I want F15/Red Flag scenario over Nevada (which I'll admit does seem a bit enticing) I have no interest.

Even then...that's one campaign.

 

Now I look at the IL2 Kuban landscape, and it's so much nicer than DCS Normandy...I'm getting to the point where DCS is a lost cause for me personally.

Especially with PTO on the way for IL2.

I totally agree - seems they never had a plan or concept combining their aeroplane modules with sensible maps (or combat scenarios).

 

At the beginning with Flanker 2.0 and Flaming Cliffs you could guess some "might be / might happen" scenarios, but beside of this? Not really much.

 

Cheers

[Lusekofte]

Can it be that the team wanted fighter pilots fond of fast planes and no historical preference to take the bait, I mean P 51 , K4 and Dora is on the wish list to quite a lot of people here. And Normandy got that ring to it, if your not into aviation history

[DD_Arthur]

Can it be that the team wanted fighter pilots fond of fast planes and no historical preference to take the bait, I mean P 51 , K4 and Dora is on the wish list to quite a lot of people here. And Normandy got that ring to it, if your not into aviation history

 

Exactly this and the Kickstarter offer was a reflection of it.   

[Feathered_IV]

I remember saying back in the day that I thought is was going to be a fiasco.  That's why I never considered backing it.

[SeaW0lf]

The problem is that the P-51 (which could be a staple aircraft) is a warbird version, has pillow hands and this and that. So you alienate a big portion of the allied side. This is an old gripe that now seems to become even more of a gripe to hear that the so called revision will be a downgraded version. It is like pour gasoline on fire. So the argument of them marketing uber aircraft has some holes.

 

I don't think the problem is lack of contextual maps and missions. People stop playing when the sim is flawed and wrong decisions are made instead of fixing what is already broken. If DCS had a good DM, if visibility was good, if there were some sort of standardization in between modules (the impression is that the modules are a patchwork in between studios), if there was a good support for multiplayer, the player base would be there cherishing the sim. Back in 2014, when I first bought my modules, I would not find a disgruntled crowd complaining about DM and visibility. Because there is raw potential, and the clickable cockpits and refined FM is a divider.

 

If a studio get a good player base in its first years with a core product that has quality and is playable / workable, even if the map is small, even if there is no grass, no wave caps, after a few years of dedication and tweaking it will have all the bling people want (contextual maps, wave caps, grass and whatever) and full servers and a strong player base. In general that's not what I see in the market.

 

And there is the "taboo" of not being allowed to talk about other sims at DCS forum. I mean, seriously. Their WWII sim is currently limited (has been that way for years) and their forum is censored. We have very little to work with. Who knows, perhaps with the 2.5 merge coming they will work on the things they need to work.

[Gambit21]

 

I don't think the problem is lack of contextual maps and missions..

Uh....yeah it is - read the thread.

There are other problems obviously, but this thread should make it obvious to anyone that lack of proper theaters is the biggest issue.

[BeastyBaiter]

I really don't think it's maps that are the issue, the jet side of DCS is doing just fine despite having a pair of far sillier maps with a third silly map on the way.

[Urra]

As long as I could actually get rid of stutters in 2.1 id actually give them some credit. But as far as I know if I post regarding this problem on their forum I'll get a warning or have the thread removed.

Edited July 23, 2017 by TunaEatsLion

[BeastyBaiter]

Possibly, what are your system specs? 2.1 runs smooth for me on an R5 1600x and RX480 at medium-high details at 1440p.

[Gambit21]

I really don't think it's maps that are the issue, the jet side of DCS is doing just fine despite having a pair of far sillier maps with a third silly map on the way.

Yeah jets (modern) is in better shape.

[Uufflakke]

It is really a difficult task to understand how they do it. It sounds almost on purpose. It explains why the WWII section of the forum and the servers are virtually empty.

 

 

Isn't it ironic that here on the competitor's forum  is more traffic per day in one thread concerning DCS WWII module than at the entire DCS WWII forum itself?

 

It's a desert out there.

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I really don't think it's maps that are the issue, the jet side of DCS is doing just fine despite having a pair of far sillier maps with a third silly map on the way.

One map. Caucasus. 

2.1 Nevada is doing even worse than Normandy. 

 

Yesterday flew another sortie on Burning Skies in P-51 but despite mission changes its still the same clusterf**k where hordes of K-4s drop on you half the time. And the other half the time you keep squinting your eyes to actually spot something when cruising at 13.000 ft. At this point even WoL feels more organized...

[Lusekofte]

I use the WW2 fighters in DCS in the Nevada map for flying around, the Normandy map for choppers and whatever I feel like. Like in this game Dogfights have no interest for me. But one thing I give them, my old PC have yet been adequate in all maps. 

I do not expect much, to me it was a miracle that a new MI 8 campaign became available. I do a lot more stuff in DCS i appreciate than in BOS. 

However the mix of planes is a problem in all , not just WW2

 

Here is a pic I from FB from 2,1 you can't say it is not beautiful 

Edited July 23, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Danziger]

Nobody says DCS isn't beautiful. It's potential for being so great is what frustrates people dealing with the whole thing for the last few years. I came to DCS in 2010 with Black Shark 1. The announcement of DCS World and all the amazing things coming got everyone really hyped. Then seven years later here we are lol.

[Urra]

Nobody says DCS isn't beautiful. It's potential for being so great is what frustrates people dealing with the whole thing for the last few years. I came to DCS in 2010 with Black Shark 1. The announcement of DCS World and all the amazing things coming got everyone really hyped. Then seven years later here we are lol.

Yea, Nevada map is beautiful at 4k. But it stutters.

[Sokol1]

See DCSW as it is: just a plane "simulator", nothing more. Is not "flight game", so expect find the "game" part in it is futile. 

[Danziger]

This is how I look at it as well. I mainly flew MiG-21bis over Caucasus map shooting down B-52s running pretend what if missions.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I dont understand what they are trying to achieve. They have created this situation themselves, then they've decided to ignore or at best negate community

 

-snip-

 

true simulation cannot and should not be balanced

 

-snip-

 

 

I don't understand their development model at all. Nothing they do at any layer of their business seems to make any sense.

 

Truth be told, I actually agree with this sentiment as well. True simulation can't and shouldn't be balanced. But it's also not a true simulation without representing every option that was historically present either.

See DCSW as it is: just a plane "simulator", nothing more. Is not "flight game", so expect find the "game" part in it is futile. 

 

Probably the best explanation of it.

 

The only thing "true simulator" about DCS is flipping switches... And even then, you're doing that with a mouse.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

The only thing "true simulator" about DCS is flipping switches... And even then, you're doing that with a mouse.

 

Meh, only some people do and sometimes only. Most of the time one has it mapped to his hotas. Flipping switches adds far less to realism then proper sounds which btw. is one of the weakest points of DCS modules. For such a price engine, weapon and other kinds of sounds are lacking. Still cant wait for Jafa to finish his sound mod for P-51, Spitfire and couple other aircraft. 

[Gambit21]

 

The only thing "true simulator" about DCS is flipping switches... And even then, you're doing that with a mouse.

 

...and that's the thing with click-pits...the mouse. (and floating arrow)

Personally I find tapping a key on a keyboard or my stick much more realistic (speaking in relative terms here) than using a mouse to move an arrow that's floating in front of my face.

Not to mention that it's more cumbersome than either flipping the switch in real life, or hitting the key on the keyboard/stick.

Edited July 23, 2017 by Gambit21

[SeaW0lf]

Isn't it ironic that here on the competitor's forum  is more traffic per day in one thread concerning DCS WWII module than at the entire DCS WWII forum itself?

 

Exactly. But I imagine that part of the reason for being so empty is due to the censorship in the forum. Here we can talk about other simulators and have more freedom. They are undermining themselves with it, but it is their way. 

 

See DCSW as it is: just a plane "simulator", nothing more. Is not "flight game", so expect find the "game" part in it is futile. 

 

IMHO the appropriate word is "combat", not "game". If they are Digital Combat Simulator, they should deliver accordingly, or else change the brand to "Digital Simulator". At least this is my view of the WWII section.

[nirvi]

Some pics of the new caucasus map:

[Bearfoot]

When it comes to DCS visuals, I always want to know what the world looks like from 50-100 ft (or, otherwise, just below tree top level) ... in VR.

 

That seals the deal. Visually, everything else is just an inconsequential side-note .

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Nirvi, do I understand that new Caucasus will actually be smaller ? Or is the first pic just focused on some area ?

 

Also, cant exactly judge those pictures and how they compare to what we get with Kuban ... pictures themselves are rather low res  

[Danziger]

I won't lie it looks very nice. I'm still waiting for the grand unified 2.5 before I update and play again.