Where is everyone (online)

[gavagai]

I haven't had much time for flying lately, but I will unashamedly boast of preferring dogfight maps, even with airstarts!:holiday:

 

1. There are too few people flying DCS warbirds for larger maps to be worth the time investment.

2. Many of us still need more practice with BFM in these high fidelity warbirds.

3. Others still can't take off and land properly, so the more serious maps/missions feature half the players digging smoking holes in the runway, or just flying around lost for 30 minutes and then leaving.:bored:

 

When the community is larger and the average skill level has increased more serious options will appeal to more people.

[Ultra]

1. There are too few people flying DCS warbirds for larger maps to be worth the time investment.

2. Many of us still need more practice with BFM in these high fidelity warbirds.

3. Others still can't take off and land properly, so the more serious maps/missions feature half the players digging smoking holes in the runway, or just flying around lost for 30 minutes and then leaving.:bored:

 

When the community is larger and the average skill level has increased more serious options will appeal to more people.

 

It's all true. I keep saying it, but only because it hasn't got any attention from anyone: Until we get a map and more players come, the current solution is planned events! I don't have the resources to host, but someone really needs to organize something.

Sorry if I sound like a broken record, I just think it's that important. :)

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

I agree mostly with what you said, then you close out with this? We get information on something related to DCS WWII almost every newsletter... no matter what ED does, or what they talk about, someone will be disappointed with what they didn't say.

 

Honestly, as much as I want a map, I would be just as happy with era specific units to tide me over. Proper flak, ground targets, etc would go a long way. But at the end of the day, when you are dog fighting, the ground you are over just gets in the way.

 

 

i think, you misunderstood, or well, i chose the wrong word...i am not talking about big newsletters here, and i dont expect major updates every month....

 

BUT: the last real news about the map are i think 1 1/2 years old...news where we heard that there was progress. now i am not necessarily asking for screenshots of the map or anything, but probably even only a confirmation, that there was any kind of progress in the last 1 1/2 years on this front would be good to know. but as it is now, it seems as if they havent touched the map at all ever since this guy who was working on the map for rrg (sorry cant remember his name) was kicked out.

 

ok, and if that is true, then some information about the ground units would do fine as well...really anything. even if they havent created one single model yet, there must be a plan behind the scenes...something they can share.

 

or probably the most wanted feature of dcsww2...a bomber, even if AI only...really nothing at all to tell/show?

 

or really nothing at all in regards of the announced warbirds? i know, we saw screenshots of early renders...but with very little words accompanying them.

 

its just that with little more effort on the update front, i am convinced they could keep the hipe and prevent to let it fade away...

 

and last but not least Sithspawn, yes, the guys who already fly the warbirds in dcs, will all agree with you:

 

"But at the end of the day, when you are dog fighting, the ground you are over just gets in the way."

 

but, with that thinking, ED will lose out on a big group, who are not flying dcs just because of this.there are lots of them, naming the lack of a map the reason why they dont fly dcs.

 

also, i really hope, that dcsww2 will become more than just quick dogfighting.and if you want to immerse yourself, in really good and historical missions, a map is needed.

[Wolf Rider]

well; you'll just have to learn patience young Padiwan

[NineLine]

well; you'll just have to learn patience young Padiwan

 

+1000

 

If the last news on the map was that it was behind two others, and those two others are not completed and released yet, common sense tells us what we need to know... we dont need to tell ED how important anything they are working on is to the big picture...

[Nirvi]

It's all true. I keep saying it, but only because it hasn't got any attention from anyone: Until we get a map and more players come, the current solution is planned events! I don't have the resources to host, but someone really needs to organize something.

Sorry if I sound like a broken record, I just think it's that important. :)

That's a good idea, so maybe we could do a bit of brainstorming?

Here's a idea for a mission I already tested with some friends, but only against AI:

 

Blue side has to escort some bombers at high altitude, and defend a bridge.

Red side has to shoot down the bombers and destroy the bridge.

Both sides would have to split up their units to reach their objectives, a gamemaster providing bearings to the objective/enemies.

 

Just some ideas...I hope there's enough interest for a big planned event.

[Teapot]

Blue side has to escort some bombers at high altitude, and defend a bridge.

Red side has to shoot down the bombers and destroy the bridge.

 

Don't you mean "Blue side has to escort some bombers at high altitude, and destroy a bridge"? :huh:

[mwd2]

He say, both sides need to split their forces - manage all tasks - you need an air marshal :music_whistling: !

 

The lag of ground unit (i know we have some, thanks to the community, in particular to Lilkiki) is (beside of the map) the main problem.

 

What is about this scenario:

 

Each side need to bring their ground forces from A to B to capture ground. So you need to defend your ground units (on their way) and also destroy the enemy ground units, too.

 

As option: both ground unit could fight at each other at point C (between A und B).

[airdoc]

As much as I love DCS, I have been really tired of waiting for a proper WW2 environment and eventually our whole squadron has switched and spends time mostly in another sim.

 

There are many issues that need to be addressed before DCS WW2 becomes an attractive option for hardcore simmers.

1. Multiplayer needs to be fixed --at least 60 slots, no lag

2. Visibility really needs to be fixed. If it doesn't it is literally a no-go for most members of the (WW2) community where spotting is everything. Let me say that again : it shouldn't take a 40 inch 4K monitor or eagle eyes or whatever to be able to feel comfortable spotting an aircraft 1 mile from yours. People can argue about realism or other parameters as much as they want, but if the majority of players with their "average" monitor and PC feel that this seriously hinders their experience with the game, then it should be fixed (even if this means different visibility options in the settings)

3. Normandy with period units and definitely AI bombers have to come in.

4. New maps, new ground units and new theaters (or expansion of the existing ETO) should keep flowing. People keep coming if they have something new to expect. To release Normandy and then release the next WW2 map 3 years later (which would equal the time it took for Normandy to be delivered after its announcement in 2013--that is, assuming it will be 2016) is a recipe for a dead WW2 community. It would be as if BOS kept the Stalingrad map for 3 years--surely a deal breaker and certain abandonment by the community.

 

I 'm hopeful that part of the gap will be filled by LN (fingers crossed about a PTO bird and map) and VEAO (Tobruk and warbirds). But all these seem very far away right now. Even if we get maps and we have no flyable bombers (they don't have to be heavies, they could be mediums) we will still be lacking an important feature of mission design.

 

I think that one of the biggest drawbacks is that we don't currently have a dedicated WW2 part of DCS that will really push things forward for this period (as was the original kickstarter goal - but failed). WW2 makes a small part of the DCS community (maybe 30%) and our modules and maps have to be prioritized accordingly. Each time ED announce a photo of an upcoming jet, the facebook likes are double relative to the ones of warbird photos. Let's face it, jets sell more (currently).

 

The only way that I see the WW2 envirnoment flourishing sooner rather than later is if more 3rd parties kicked in, dedicated to producing WW2 modules and especially maps. I 'm not aware of the economics behind module development, but I 'd think that it should be far less costly to develop a Warbird than a Jet.

 

Also, why not give the map-making tools to the community? IL2 1946 and now COD are perfect examples of how much a dedicated and talented community can deliver. Even the announcement of such a thing will revive the interest and surely attract more people to DCS. TF hasn't produced a new map yet in CLOD, but it is about to, and yet all this time people have been patient enough and grateful that there is dedication to improve and introduce new features.

 

I 'm sure that with the above features solved, a dozen warbirds -including bombers- and 2 good maps, the community would explode and each warbird would have its sales doubled. But this is wishful thinking for the time being.

Edited May 8, 2015 by airdoc

[nervousenergy]

A WW2 makes a small part of the DCS community (maybe 30%) and our modules and maps have to be prioritized accordingly. Let's face it, jets sell more.

Is this true, though? I didn't think ED released sales figures. The D9 and K4 are very popular planes in the WWII community, along with the upcoming Jug and Spit.

 

And regardless of the sales figures, I completely agree with your last paragraph about map/scenarios exploding the WWII community. I don't have any hard data for this, but my strong suspicion / belief is the the WWII community is a potentially much, much larger DCS audience than jets. There is no 'War Thunder' for jets... no World of Jets, etc. I love all military aircraft simulation (and have bought all the DCS modules other than the C-101 trainer, and will likely get that in the next sale), but let's face it... WWII aircraft are far more approachable for most simmers/gamers, and the combat is far more personal and understandable. Plus the continued allure of WWII as the last Great Conflict.

 

I'm really looking forward to the map and hope we get it sooner rather than later. I think just about every part of this community is holding it's breath over EDGE/World 2, and once that finally lands things will break open more. WWII maps almost by their very nature are going to be easier to model, since a lot of it is going to be 'your guess is as good as mine' kind of modeling.

 

Go, ED, go!

[Ultra]

Good ideas for missions guys, but who would host?

[dooom]

He say, both sides need to split their forces - manage all tasks - you need an air marshal :music_whistling: !

 

The lag of ground unit (i know we have some, thanks to the community, in particular to Lilkiki) is (beside of the map) the main problem.

 

What is about this scenario:

 

Each side need to bring their ground forces from A to B to capture ground. So you need to defend your ground units (on their way) and also destroy the enemy ground units, too.

 

As option: both ground unit could fight at each other at point C (between A und B).

 

hmmm - i like this idea. I might make this one and host it at DoW...

[mwd2]

When you build a mission with P-51 on blue and 190 & 109 on red - in which ratio do you place 190 to 109 or is it mission dependent?

[msalama]

Visibility really needs to be fixed.

 

Well this is a hairy one. Back in the day flying another sim, you could adjust the graphics so that all contacts showed up as big blobs from some 10 miles away, which was totally ridiculous. So whatever you do, do NOT _overdo_ it fergadssakes!

 

But then again, it's pretty bad as it is, true. So I don't know - maybe just darken the far lod color a tad and fix the broken LODs some models have and see where that gets us first?

[Wolf Rider]

How about, all lets not drag this thread into another supposed "visibility issue" thread??????

 

There's a new engine coming, which looks promising in more than one area, so there's no point in continually hassling... the prior couple of posts look good and a sense of community returning

[gavagai]

hmmm - i like this idea. I might make this one and host it at DoW...

 

Try this one.

 

:)

Bridges.miz

[Tumbleweed]

 

2. Visibility really needs to be fixed. If it doesn't it is literally a no-go for most members of the (WW2) community where spotting is everything. Let me say that again : it shouldn't take a 40 inch 4K monitor or eagle eyes or whatever to be able to feel comfortable spotting an aircraft 1 mile from yours. People can argue about realism or other parameters as much as they want, but if the majority of players with their "average" monitor and PC feel that this seriously hinders their experience with the game, then it should be fixed (even if this means different visibility options in the settings)

 

+1

[Talisman_VR]

+1

 

This is absolutely correct. So many friends and organised squads are waiting to take part in good DCS WWII air combat on-line MP, but will not do so unless DCS show they can deliver and its product is playable in terms of available aircraft and air-to-air visibility for squad flying and tactics.

WWII multiplayer will fail, as will all the potential increased sales of DCS aircraft if this issue is not addressed. It could be a mega success for DCS if they don't drop the ball. Drop this ball and successful WWII is a none starter.

I have stopped flying the P51 since squad flying and tactics are not sustainable due to lack of complimentary aircraft sets, unrealistically bad visibility and poor MP servers (mostly low level dogfights with airfields too close).

Also, I don't visit the forum much now since my initial excitement, as there is not much news on the WWII front of late. I have accepted that we just have to wait and even then we may be disappointed. More and more WWII flight sim enthusiast appear to be drifting off and away to other games as far as I can see.

Edited May 9, 2015 by 56RAF_Talisman

[JST]

2. Visibility really needs to be fixed. If it doesn't it is literally a no-go for most members of the (WW2) community where spotting is everything. Let me say that again : it shouldn't take a 40 inch 4K monitor or eagle eyes or whatever to be able to feel comfortable spotting an aircraft 1 mile from yours. People can argue about realism or other parameters as much as they want, but if the majority of players with their "average" monitor and PC feel that this seriously hinders their experience with the game, then it should be fixed (even if this means different visibility options in the settings)

 

And if someone demanded that his K-4 flew absolutely straight because he shouldn't have to buy rudder pedals (or any other related flight equipment) to accompany his $10 flight stick, he'd be told to suck it up.

 

Why shouldn't you have to buy that 40" 4k monitor to get the improved experience? Why shouldn't this extend to PC hardware?

 

Instead, you want cheap tricks to help you spot and ID targets, even if it means it's completely unrealistic.

 

Every sim I've played, "spotting" has been about the same. But almost everywhere as well, this buzzword keeps popping up.

 

Maybe, instead of demanding "fixes" to problems that are comparable with demanding simplifying flight models because you simply don't want to invest in proper gear, it's time to start setting the new standard.

 

Just a thought from someone not flying a K-4 because it's way too hard with only a twist stick.

[msalama]

JST: spot on.

[gavagai]

And if someone demanded that his K-4 flew absolutely straight because he shouldn't have to buy rudder pedals (or any other related flight equipment) to accompany his $10 flight stick, he'd be told to suck it up.

 

Why shouldn't you have to buy that 40" 4k monitor to get the improved experience? Why shouldn't this extend to PC hardware?

 

Just to hazard a guess:

 

pedals ~$100-200

 

4k monitor ~$800-1000

 

To make flight sims viable there has to be balance between the required entry fee and hardware fidelity. We're hanging out with a crowd that invests $1000-2000 just to enjoy the hobby, but if you push it to $3000 many will have to give it up.

[JST]

Yes it is expensive, but I can't afford either, and my invesment in flight gear is a 50€ T.16000M joystick.

 

But you have been enjoying the experience so far, right? I know I am.

 

Regardless, there is no price cap after which you can complain and demand for parity, not here IMO.

 

It'll be interesting to see when 4k will be de facto standard, and it's moved into the "Suck it up" -checklist.

[Solty]

Yes it is expensive, but I can't afford either, and my invesment in flight gear is a 50€ T.16000M joystick.

 

But you have been enjoying the experience so far, right? I know I am.

 

Regardless, there is no price cap after which you can complain and demand for parity, not here IMO.

 

It'll be interesting to see when 4k will be de facto standard, and it's moved into the "Suck it up" -checklist.

I fly since I was 12, and I have never met such hostility towards other virtual pilot, for such trivial reason.

 

Wow you are a cold capitalist. Try understanding people from less wealthy countries.

 

This is a talk of somebody that never had finantial instability in his life. When 4k is standard then we can talk about meeting standards, right now is a novelty.

 

For now I would say that 1920x1080 is a high-end standard that might be required to get high fidelity.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Solty

[JST]

Hostility? I'm simply trying to understand why is it acceptable to set aside the strive for realism and demand parity or helper functions because "visibility needs to be fixed", but same can't be done with flight modelling f.ex.

 

With hardware, either of these can be equally expensive for someone to get into equal ground.

 

I think it's hostile against DCS to be willing to throw realism under the bus and have changes made, because something doesn't feel right to you, or you feel you shouldn't have to buy new hardware to improve your situation. Pedals or monitor.

 

And no, I don't have a 4k monitor because I can't afford one.

[gavagai]

Well, I can see this conversation isn't going anywhere. Have a read here and see what others say.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=139306