Rosebud47

It was the right decision by ED to give green light for the release to avoid damaging ED and other 3rd party developer quality releases. Now RAZBAM can put their little hands on the module to bring it to a DCS quality module. Personally I don´t buy any other RAZBAM module, before the Eagle has reached this, but that´s just me. The graphics are really, really good. Even the 1st person pilot model is great and included into the early access release, so thumbs up for this.

... exactly!

I´m happy, when I get in expected and reasonable time, what I´ve paid for. Delivering the bugs before delivering the module is ridiculous.

@AhSoul Appreciate your polite communication, even we´re not of the same opinion. There are always people, who push the limits to exploid others.

Go ahead, if you want to spend hundreds of dollars to have a bunch of incomplete and bugged flight-sims after 10 years.

What a naive comment. People already paid due to the long time ongoing marketing campaign. Don´t get me wrong: I do love to support start-ups by kickstarter campaigns, but this is not what we´re dealing with here. My critique focuses is particular to some 3rd party developer. The newer ED modules in early access are, maybe with minor exceptions, bug free, while not being feature complete in early access release, what is to be expected and fine as it is. Again it is obviously, that some distribution is focused on money as soon as possible and not on delivering a complete product in time as expected. After the release of the F-15E you will see a significant stretch in time to complete the module, even and BECAUSE it is already paid by the people. Why streching the development after release? Because resources are taken away to develop new graphics, announce and sell for another product long before in advanced of early access release. ED should urgently sensibilize the 3rd party devs. to not even meet solid standards with their products, but also sensitize them to solid and reasonable standards in the marketing-, release- and completion process. Thank you.

Already regret spending good money for this again. Now the modules are bugged even before they get released into early access. No complaint for the graphic designers btw.

@Gripen 4-1 In my experience by testing out MT, there seems to be an issue with MotionReprojection through OpenXR using OpenXR developer tool in combination with the OpenXR Tool Kit with the Reverb G2, RTX 3090, i9 tenthousandsomething 10 + 10 Hyperthreading cores @5GHz and the -force Vr --force openXR addition in the bin-MT/ DCS.exe file I could have forced reprojection by the OpenXr tool kit, but the FPS weren´t noticable improved in comparison to the ST DCS.exe. After deactivated the OpenXR Tool Kit, the FPS increased in the range many people reported and on top the image quality ( without any NAS or CAS sharpening ) is much better, just by setting the renderscale in the OpenXR developer tool at 100%. Therefore, because MotionReprojection isn´t working without the Tool Kit ( even it ois activated in the OpenXr developer Tool ), there appears stutters in the cockpit view, while moving the head left to right - this is to be expected as the point of view on to the cockpit panels changes the content of each frame much more significantly, than a point of view in the distance of the landscape, where the content of each frame doesn´t have as much details to change per frame than the view on to the cockpit panels. As the visual quality without motion reprojection ( in Monitor:Stereo mode ) is much more better and now by MT playable, I´ll leave it like this and live for now with some small stutters while looking on the cockpit panels and moving the head. In normal flight it is barely noticable, as when looking to the cockpit panels, I used to focus a particular instrument or gauge and then look up in the HUD again. The FPS vary a lot depending on which module and which map the flight takes place. Happily surprised that the Harrier ( which was always one my best performing modules FPS-wise ) reached 90 FPS on the NTTR map for a short moment, but is mostly between 60 and 80FPS, what is very good. With the Viper over Syria there is only a little bit increase in performance noticable. I do hope, when the modules got adjusted to MT ( like Radar telemetry, MFDs, TGP, etc. got an separated CPU thread ) the performance with regard to modules will be significantly increased. So my recommendation is to leave MotionReprojection off ( it anyways creates a blurry image and artefacts like blurry edges, especiall at the rotor and propeller animation ) and adjust the performance by the graphical settings like reduced shadows/ flat shadows only, view distance, etc. in the DCS graphics option menu to your liking.

@BIGNEWY Heatblur recently mentioned, that their F-14 Tomcat module was adjusted to MT processing, does that mean, that MT is currently implemented into the EDGE core code only and we will see further improvements in performance, when the module´s codes are adjusted to MT? Will the map´s performance also benefit from MT, if the map´s codes are adjusted to MT? Thanks in advanced!

Thank you for clarification, Mrs. Perederko. By far the most honest comment, I´ve read in this forum for years ...

I´m also not sure or better said: I have no idea how the new terrain creating tool works. But I could imagine that it is setup with that whole world concept in mind. At least the ground work and probably asstes of The Channel map could be useful to recreate it within Normandy 2.0.

No, I didn´t. In contrary! Your campaigns and of other content creators would be still available to buy for The Channel only, if Normandy 2.0 would be merge together with The Channel and The Channel map would be made for free as a single map. The point is, that The Channel if being a free map for WW2 like Caucasus, could lower the barrier for new players to enter into a WW2 scenario. Same as for Caucasus, all campaigns made for The Channel so far still would have a selling point, as the map itself is for free. On the other hand, if The Channel would still be sold as a single map and Normandy 2.0 includes The Channel, there would be no selling point anymore for the campaigns made for The Channel so far, as Normandy 2.0 and its campaigns is the way to go if to spend money for a WW2 map. ... but that´s only theoretical thinking. My critique on the model of Normandy 2.0 we´re currently debating is more concerned with the concept of a whole world in DCS in mind. Personally I would love to see such concepts being created userfriendly and not turned into a cash cow from start. The idea of having Normandy 2.0 as ´whole world´ scenario for WW2 is great, would love to see that coming true and expansion of that ´whole world´scenario in a reasonable and truely userfriendly manner.

Thanks @NineLine for giving this a good direction. Alternatively The Channel could be still serve a purpose as a free map including purchasable campaigns, when Normandy 2.0 is released and make WW2 more attractive for new players coming to DCS.

While appreciate the new map, better graphics, wider areas, London, Paris, the discount for owners of old maps, the bad taste which accompanies does not go away. The NE area of Normandy 2.0 is not by coincident left in low graphical fidelity. Remind that a new player has to pay full prize 59,90 $, but gets a map with 1/4 of the area in low quality. More than that, the low quality area in Normandy 2.0 obviously is a placeholder for The Channel map, because there IS a Channel map on sale and not any other map and not any other low quality area on the new Normandy 2.0. That means, that sooner or later the low quality area on the Normandy 2.0 map will be filled by this one Channel map - could be filled immediately or in 1 or 2 years - it´s just a decision, not a technical issue. The difference between a serious business and a scam is, that the scammer will always try to pull out the sense of any discussion or critique by saying: "Take it or leave it". Well, thank you.

@NineLine but that makes it tricky for new players, who don´t know, that they have to buy The Channel first ( for full price )to get the discount for Normandy 2.0. But if a new player buys Normandy 2.0 first ( for full price ), he got to pay the full price for The Channel anyways. But to be honest, i think ED will discount the price for The Channel anyways, once Normandy 2.0 gets released. Still a lot of water will run down the river until then.