Chivas

I would prefer a large map that more detail could be added to by the community and dev team over the years. Where the community added detail could be presented to the dev team for final approval and tweaks. I suppose it would depend on the PC hardware and EDGE graphic engine demands, but PC hardware capabilities would scale with game resource demands over the development years. As long as there are video options for players unable to update their hardware.

The future of combat flight sims looks very good. Warthunder is a decent sim for the arcade crowd. COD, BOS, and DCSWW2 will provide three different theaters of war for the simulation crowd. It will be interesting to see if Luthier will be able to develop a pilot training program that will attract more new users to the genre. Especially since DCS aircraft may be more technical than the other sims. I don't have a problem with Luthier starting kickstarter early in the development, as its the perfect venue to start, judge his market, and make adjustments according to the kickstarter feedback. Its quite laugable that people are critizing the development for changing rewards based on customer feedback. The same people would critize them if they didn't adjusting the rewards. Especially since there is very little change to the actual development plan, its primarily reward changes. The only development changes would have happened if kickstarter monies had allowed the hiring of more personel to facilitate more content earlier. The fact that the sim was being built on an existing game engine, with a working example of a P51, and screenshots of the capabilities of the new EDGE graphic engine should have given people more than enough info on how the sim might play out, and pledge accordingly. It should have been obvious to people why there was little actual DCSWW2 content to show, or why Luthier wasn't able to mention the IL-2 successes made by Oleg and himself. It just made me shake my head when people wondered why Luthier couldn't do promo videos that included images of the original IL-2, and COD, when individuals like Mystic etc were able to do so. It will be tough to complete four more aircraft, and the terrain in a year, but they don't have an unfinished game engine eating up resources. Which was the elephant in the room with COD, so they have a chance, but there are always delays in this very complex work.

The new EDGE graphic engine should address most of the terrain problems of DCS. The map is the most important aspect, providing a considerable number of fighter scenarios, and the B17/Lancaster etc can be added later, when resources allow. The development plans to stay with the ETO for quite sometime providing maps and aircraft. BOS will probably concentrate on the Eastern Front in their next addon. I don't see any need for DCSWW2 to have Russian aircraft for years and years, if they ever venture into areas where Russian aircraft were used. Having Russian aircraft would have no effect on DCSWW2's survivability, atleast for the foreseeable future. We will have BOS to satisfy our Eastern urges. In the meantime COD will be a good option after the next TF patch, to tied us over until BOS, and DCSWW2 are flyable. Its all good.

Finally an answer... "RPS: If none of the stretch goals are reached will all Allied sorties start and finish in the air? Ilya: No, of course not. Post D-Day the Allies built a huge number of temporary airfields all over the Normandy coast. That’s where the Allied players will be based." Maybe not the best solution, but one that could be satisfying enough until the map is enlarged to include parts of England. It also appears they will have many more areas of Europe modeled. My question would be, Will there be a continuous map or a series of separate maps? If its a series of maps, are there any thoughts of combining to one big European map once computers are powerful enough to handle very large detailed maps?

I agree the map choice is a mistake considering the aircraft, and lack of Allied airfields. I find this baffling considering the experience of Oleg and Luthier.

Yes something like that, I would even cut out anything south of Caen if need be, for the initial release. I would imagine they could play it as it unfolds, over the next year, having a team working on the English coast and team working on the French coast, even if the team is only one man each. Just detail as much as can be detailed in the next year. Although that could be a problem if they only have one person available to work on the terrain. ;)

There is a big problem brewing if the Allied flyers only have airstarts. Is there any possibility that some of the detail of the southern part of the Normandy map could be delayed, and put that detail effort into a very thin short strip of the south England coast.

I understand your opinion, and I'm sure one way or another this will be addressed at some point, but airstarts is a very big deal, atleast for me. Taking off and struggling back to base to save my aircraft is a huge part of the immersion for me. I don't believe for a second that the combat flight enthusiasts of the DCS WW2 development aren't very concerned with this feature. I'll probably be flying LW aircraft, but there will be a very large angry group of Allied pilots if they only have airstarts. That said the Normandy map could be divided into sectors for both sides to have airfields, and it might sooth the masses for the first year until the issue is address, but I think its a issue that should be avoided at all costs. Cutting back some of the detail required in the southern part of Normandy, and put that detail work into a very thin, short sector of the South English coast could be workable solution.

You can usually land at the same airfield you took off from. Just kidding. ;)

I'm not talking stretch goals, but just distributing the same work of the initial 100,000 goal. Not adding more detailed area to the map, but taking away detailed areas of the southern part of the Normandy map and adding that detail to the English Coast part of the map. Although the English Port work would certainly require more work than inland Normandy. That said, initially they only need maybe two English Ports. Two or three airfields each side of the channel and some of the detailed terrain connecting them. The rest of the terrain can be detailed in a series of addons. One large map that gets detailed as the developer see's fit and has the resources for.

They could start with a map similar to the COD BOB map, "BUT" with only detailed terrain along as much as both coasts the development can get done by the initial release. They could then slowly add detail to the terrain with each new aircraft and feature they sell. They could eventually have a highly detailed map that expands farther into Europe, when average computers could handle that size and detail. The amount of iconic and otherwise fighters, bombers etc they could sell while expanding the map and detail, that were used in the ETO are almost unlimited. Eventually they could use the same idea in the Pacific. They could start with a very large map only but only detailed in Hawaii, with maybe some aircraft involved on Dec7th 41, and maybe a few aircraft carriers. Then slowly expand the terrain detail into all the other islands of the pacific, while selling aircraft/features involved in that theater.

I hate to be negative, especially when we aren't sure how its all going to pan out, but I definitely have concerns. What's the first thing most people think about when Normandy is mentioned. D Day? Of course there are far more missions to make than D Day, but not having at least a small section of the English coast line airfields/ports in the initial release is going to be a mistake. I suppose they could put Allied/LW airfields opposing each other on the Normandy map, but that just doesn't seem right. Air starts are a non-starter atleast for fighters in the initial release. B17 AI airstarts wouldn't be a problem in the initial release. They should concentrate their resources on a thin strip of the British and Normandy coasts, for the initial release, where the map is mostly water, then expand the map with later releases to eventually include B17 bases farther north in England, and expand farther east along the French coast. Maybe slowly expanding the map for B17 missions further and further into France and Germany.

You'll probably see is a hybrid of the ten years of the original IL-2 Sturmovic. Only this time instead of paying for Theaters every few years that included free aircraft, you'll be paying for most of those aircraft. The good news is there will be a steady inflow of product, rather than waiting a couple years or more for each theater. It also gives the development a more consistent source of income to provide for their families, and the funding to continue creating content. Its a win win.

We will have five decent aircraft to start with, so a map with enough bases for both sides is the priority. Air starts are a non-starter for me. That said I suppose that there will be enough area on the Normandy map for Allied and Axis airfields, but airfields in Southern England, like Tangmere, Warmwell, and Hawkinge would make a lot more sense. Create the B17 along with expanding the map farther north where the B17 airfields were, after you have a successful start. I have little interest in the 262, or any other jet for that matter.

That's a very tough question. I'd love to see the B17 flyable, but landing fields in England are more important for mission building. I believe all the B17 airfields would be north of London, making the map probably too large for the initial release. I would like to see atleast a thin strip of the south coast, with a few ports, but there aren't that many airfields other than Warmwell, and Tangmere, maybe Hawkinge. Then the history police would not like those fields used by B17's. You've got a tough decision. Anyway I support you and wish you the best of luck.

Yes, and elegant solution, but will my canopy get porked again if I fly into one. ;)

From Luthier's latest video it appears the EDGE graphic engine has already been used on three other projects, and is in the process of being tweaked for DCS WORLD, and DCS WW2. VR is going to be the hardware of the future, that brings more people to flight simming. Flight simming and the Occulus Rift are especially suited to one another. WarThunder, and BOS have implemented the dev kit OR, and hopefully COD and DCS will follow.

So your assuming the developer isn't smart enough to figure out they won't be able to feed their families with free stuff. .

Of course the P51, and FW190 counts. Most people here don't already own the P51. The list below shows what people will receive for the hundred dollar investment, it also shows what the free demo does not provide. P51 FW190 Early access to the sims closed beta. A hard copy of the games's air combat strategy, and tactics manual A spiral-bound copies of complete aircraft manuals. Plus the satisfaction of helping the developer hire more personal to create a decent product sooner with better possiblilities of creating further content/features/theaters later. Personally, I'm not too concerned with the details, from experience I know that the years of entertainment value will far surpass any level I payed for that software, so I'll pledge as much as I can afford to pledge. For the couple hundred dollars I invested in the origianl Il-2 there was ten years of highly entertaining combat flight simming. I'll soon recoup far more than my investment in COD, especially with the free TF patches. I'm sure my BOS and DCSWW2 investment will also be miniscule in comparison to the entertainment hours. The cost of Combat flight sim software is quite frankly a joke compared to what it costs to create them, and the computer costs required to run them well.

I understand your angst, but they have enough investment monies now to create the free demo. If goals are reached kickstarter monies will allows them to start creating sellable content "now" that could be ready for sale shortly after the release of the free demo. The more kickstarter monies they receive the more sellable content they will be able to deliver.

They will not be receiving a full game. The free demo doesn't include the P51, FW190, and later aircraft and content. Very very few users will only fly the demo. Not to mention being part of the beta test team, which many of us covet. By far the majority of users will buy the P51, FW190, now or later so both groups will be paying around the same thing, except that pledgers depending on the level of the pledge, will pay a little less, or even more if they decide too put a substantial pledge down. I've put a substantial pledge because flight simming is hobby, that has provided me with years of entertainment value, at a ridiculously low price for the software. By far the most important aspect of pledging is allowing the developer to plan ahead with some security, with some idea of the demand for their product, and hire more people to create more content sooner, than waiting a year from now to see if sales warrant further development, and hires.

I think DCS WW2 is providing a much better sandbox to use the DCS P51, and FW190, which would stimulate far more sales of DCS aircraft. So why shouldn't they get a piece of the those aircraft sales. People are pledging now so that can receive these aircraft for no cost later. Either way we will be paying for those aircraft, with a cash/pledge now, or cash later. Paying now allows the development to hire more people to develop a more robust sim at next years release, rather than waiting to hire those people a year later if sales are robust enough. Its a win win situation for a relatively small investment from the community. There is no money out of our pockets if they don't reach the first goal. The upside is years of relatively cheap entertainment. :)

I like the idea of Kickstarter, and its a great opportunity for the genre, as I think we'd much rather have combat flight sim enthusiasts making design decisions than bean counters.

I'm sure that the DCS WW2, COD, and BOS will all eventually have very good FM's. The best possible, probably not, every decent flight sim I've ever flown has insinuated they were the best, but there are far to many variables, for anyone to know they have it right. Nevermind were flying a chair, planted squarely on the ground.

I'm impress so far, but haven't flown jets since Falcon 4 first came out. I'm an old prop head, and looking forward too DCSWorld WW2.