Is the Normandy map dead?

I am not sure we will see much more development on the Normandy map now, it's up to the 3rd Party working on it, and they did do a bunch of work recently.

That is so depressing. Surely ED strikes a contract with 3rf parties that states they must finish the product people have paid for in good faith. This sort of thing - and there are other examples - must surely be bordering on fraud.

I would imagine there is a case for users to receive a refund on unfinished, abandoned products.

Scandalous.

Runs like crap in VR, 4K no problems

 

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

In terms of FPS, it runs just as well as any other map in VR or 4K for me. In my opinion, it’s the quality of content that’s the issue.

What exactly isn't finished, and what is fraudulent?

I’m sure you have read the numerous complaints on these forums about this map. I have not been one of the complainers, but I now have sympathy with those who are unhappy after your earlier statement about no further development.

I’m sure there was another recent statement saying that more development would be undertaken on Normandy after Syria.

I said ‘bordering’ on fraud. That was perhaps an over-statement, but probably a case could be made when a product purchased in good faith is abandoned in beta, remaining unfinished.

What exactly isn't finished, and what is fraudulent?

Firstly, overall I enjoy the Normandy map, I play it more than any other DCS map, so this is not a general whinge - but rather some specific criticisms.

I wouldn't say "fraudulent" but the DCS website does say "the DCS: Normandy 1944 Map is centered on the World War II battlefield of Normandy, France and is specifically created to depict the period after the D-Day landings and the establishment of several allied airfields in Normandy to support the beachhead breakout in late June 1944"

As it stands right now, this statement is not a description of the Normandy map. The current map is an a-historical mix of features, some that existed in late June 1944 and some that did not. Airfields are just one example of this.

1. The presence of the specific set of ALGs that are included makes the dateline of the DCS Normandy map at least late July.

2. Apart from Évreux, there are no operational LW airfields on the map from the "late June" 1944 time period

There are also a number of main highways/ roads from the time period missing (https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3582627&postcount=3) which are further indicative of the Normandy map being more of an "imaginative" map, than one that "specifically depicts" the late June 1944 time.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), the war-birds flying community is as particular about historical accuracy as the modern jet fighter players are about their missiles and carrier landing procedures. This issue is not going to go away for ED.

I'd second what Phil says, however - referring to the thread title - no, it's not dead. I have no issue running it in VR and I quite enjoy it. Since Georgia has been updated and PG has been released it doesn't look the best map and things could be improved.

Ideally we'd see the coast up to Calais, as this is where some of the more important Luftwaffe bases were and we'd see a few more airfields in England. I'm not too fussed about the detail in England, as it is not the focus of the map. It just gives more scope for the battle. It still seems a little misguided to recreate the post-invasion scenario and not factor in the South Coast of England properly, but that's just the way it is.

I'm happy enough using fast-jets on the Normandy map too, the Channel Islands can make for good practice bombing ranges. Overall I like the map, I'd just like to see it finished off and be a real sandbox for later WW2 operations once future aircraft are added - such as the P-47.

I'd second what Phil says, however - referring to the thread title - no, it's not dead. I have no issue running it in VR and I quite enjoy it. Since Georgia has been updated and PG has been released it doesn't look the best map and things could be improved.

 

Ideally we'd see the coast up to Calais, as this is where some of the more important Luftwaffe bases were and we'd see a few more airfields in England. I'm not too fussed about the detail in England, as it is not the focus of the map. It just gives more scope for the battle. It still seems a little misguided to recreate the post-invasion scenario and not factor in the South Coast of England properly, but that's just the way it is.

 

I'm happy enough using fast-jets on the Normandy map too, the Channel Islands can make for good practice bombing ranges. Overall I like the map, I'd just like to see it finished off and be a real sandbox for later WW2 operations once future aircraft are added - such as the P-47.

The thread title was referring to its development status, and if NineLine's post above is correct, then development is dead, and your hope for it being finished is forlorn, I'm afraid.

I would imagine there is a case for users to receive a refund on unfinished, abandoned products.

Scandalous.

I'm Sorry but to have an unfinished product is the implicit risk of buying an early access one.

I'm Sorry but to have an unfinished product is the implicit risk of buying an early access one.

I think everyone accepts that the product might not currently be finished (it is still listed as early access in the e-shop). The complaints here seem to be directed at the notion that it might never be finished (i.e. that development is "dead").

I don't necessarily fall into that camp, but the complaint is entirely valid if its assumptions are true.

I'm Sorry but to have an unfinished product is the implicit risk of buying an early access one.

Have you actually read the last few posts here? You're missing the point.

I think everyone accepts that the product might not currently be finished (it is still listed as early access in the e-shop). The complaints here seem to be directed at the notion that it might never be finished (i.e. that development is "dead").

 

I don't necessarily fall into that camp, but the complaint is entirely valid if its assumptions are true.

Phil, don't you feel that NineLine's post #75 was pretty clear?

What exactly isn't finished?

The map is still listed as early access in the e-shop. Doesn't that mean, that even according to the dev's the map is not finished?

Phil, don't you feel that NineLine's post #75 was pretty clear?

Well, Nineline's comment has to be consistent with ED's official statement on the website that the map is still early access.. right?

IronJockel appears to have noticed this apparent inconsistency too:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3583351&postcount=87

The whole thing is a little bit more on the confusing side of clear, if you ask me, which is why I can't commit to the "map is dead" school...

Well, Nineline's comment has to be consistent with ED's official statement on the website that the map is still early access.. right?

 

IronJockel appears to have noticed this apparent inconsistency too:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3583351&postcount=87

 

The whole thing is a little bit more on the confusing side of clear, if you ask me, which is why I can't commit to the "map is dead" school...

We know it's in Early Access, and that is the point. We have all (well, most) accepted that the map is unfinished, but have had the expectation of it continuing to be developed towards a release version.

Apart from one recent update, progress has - at least from a user's point of view - been very very slow, and now, NineLine's statement here seems to confirms our worst fears I would suggest.

It is very unlikely that ED would make that statement on the main store page for obvious reasons!

The thread title was referring to its development status, and if NineLine's post above is correct, then development is dead, and your hope for it being finished is forlorn, I'm afraid.

My mistake. I sincerely hope that they are able to finish the development as I would have to agree. At the moment I don't know how it could be described as finished. There is a very detailed central area (that may or may not be accurate - I don't claim to know, but trust peoples' research) that suddenly give way to repetitive fields over the majority of the map. I can understand this in a few areas, but not the vast majority of the map. I thought that NTTR started out in a similar way and then developed over time with detail being added as and when they were able to. I thought that this was the case with Normandy too. I'd be very disappointed if this was the final product. With all of the action concentrated in such a tight area it's not exactly multiplayer friendly, if you're wanting to do more than just airquake.

I remember when IL2 opened up map making to the general public. The guys who were flying made maps and finished others. Some were great, others not so. But it settled the problem and complaining by allowing the sim pilots to continue development to their satisfaction.

There enough extremely talented people flying this sim to allow that to take place just as was done with IL2.

Why not give it a chance with the Normandy map? Give the guys the "keys to the realm" and let what happens, happen.

Another thought would be to finally activate the "grass airfield" object which would allow development of any number of additional historically accurate airfields in both England and Normandy.

There can still be fixes and tweaks coming, but I wouldnt expect to see anything new added, or major changes to the map. Has for history buffs, I understand your concerns there, but its a balance of making the map fun to play and build missions on, I am not sure historically accurate would be a ton of fun for the German fliers.

 

As well, if you check out the campaigns that have been done so far, they give a good feel of being there in 1944.

The map is in early access. Surely that means further development is due. You, yourself, I think stated somewhere that speedtrees (I think that’s the right term) would be implemented, and surely all the missing terrain and land/sea border issues that people keep bringing up will be sorted out.

Nine line quick question, I think I remember correctly that you use the odyssey? If so do you get good performance results in Normandy and of so what are your settings by chance.

I built up a pretty good rig but wondering if I need to go to 32gb well I'm going to microcenter today in denver to pick up another 16gb just to future proof I suppose.

So I get great playable results on my rift but with the odyssey in Normandy it's very hard to get good results when CPU side aka Epsom campaign.

I'm just really curious as despite liking another ww2 sim, you guys and level of detail is allot of fun. I would like to help if possible and or get your advice on the settings and performance stuff.

Thanks for the time

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Speedtrees was never promised, it was noted that people wanted to see it, but it's up to the 3rd Party dev to do so. ANd same with the map edges, it's up to that team if they want to change how the edges of the map are handled, but the edges really don't effect the playable area of the map.

Not adding speed trees, would be quite the mistake, as the maps that have it perform and look much better.

Considering that all modern day maps have it, it wouldn't help to get rid of the "WW2 doesn't matter to ED" conspiracy either.

Secondly, We have now made some headway on the P-47, I expect that to start making news soon, the Mosquito is coming, I have ordered a whack of 262 documents for Yo-Yo, the asset pack is going to be getting some new AI aircraft soon and some other things I cannot speak of right now, but very exciting.

That's news to me! :)