How's normandy lately?

[Wolf8312]

In your honest opinion is it worth getting at this point? I am pretty easily satisfied as I am a fan of using the mssion editor. I know theres not an abundance of content atm, but how is the performance with what there already is on the latest version? Has the community created alot of user made content?

 

Any problems with lighting etc? I really do feel like I might as well get it, because I'm going to at some point, but it seems that normandy is being somewhat neglected of late which is understandable but even so, dont want to buy and find myself frustrated by massive fps drops or any other nasty surprises. I think what concerns me most is that no-one ever seems to talk about normandy most likely because they are all playing the other one.

 

But I do get the feeling with clickable cockpits normandy will be fantastic in the end.

[crazyeddie]

It works okay, but its very flat, and its a bit repetitive and I think boring, with far too many airfields packed into what is a small map really. It's not a good representation of that countryside at that time, the village/towns detail is poor and it just does not have the right feel about it for the Normandy I know.

 

I waited for it patiently, bought it, tried it, got bored very quickly and moved on.

 

NTTR and the new Caucasus maps are both much more interesting, better scenery layouts, better ground detail, better everything.

 

That said, its just a very personal view of an area I know well, others may love it and I'm sure it suits the WW2 fans.

 

There is only one way you can be sure, buy it and try it.

[Wolf8312]

It works okay, but its very flat, and its a bit repetitive and I think boring, with far too many airfields packed into what is a small map really. It's not a good representation of that countryside at that time, the village/towns detail is poor and it just does not have the right feel about it for the Normandy I know.

 

I waited for it patiently, bought it, tried it, got bored very quickly and moved on.

 

NTTR and the new Caucasus maps are both much more interesting, better scenery layouts, better ground detail, better everything.

 

That said, its just a very personal view of an area I know well, others may love it and I'm sure it suits the WW2 fans.

 

There is only one way you can be sure, buy it and try it.

 

Yeah was looking at photos like this and thinking the same thing (https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/terrains/) though I imagine it looks alot better with deffered shading and lower gamma settings. Those photos really dont look good for an advertisment, way too exposed and flat (cardboard cut out) looking.

 

Comapre them to these screenshots ((( https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/screenshots/1027/ ))) and call me cynical but it doesent seem as if normandy has had nearly the same amount of love and attention!

 

 

Yeah guess I could just buy a spitfire and fly it over the caucasus with little difference but I wouldnt have anything ww2 to face off against right?

Edited May 5, 2018 by Wolf8312

[crazyeddie]

You can pull most of the aircraft, vehicles, ships etc up on any map, so theoretically you can fly and fight WW2 on any map, but the ground below is going to be very different, NTTR very Modern cities with lots of desert scenery. The new Caucasus has more of a 1980's feel to it with no grass airstrips of course (yet), so its really a matter of personal choice.

 

Imagination comes into it a lot I suppose. I like the new Caucasus because of the trees and the mountains, and I have rebuilt many of the airfields to suit my preferences. There are some excellent Mods out there that let you do that, so the Mission Editor is a great tool and with practice you can do just about anything you want on that map. I am even looking at turning a couple of those airfields into Spanish Civil War airstrips (Its a long WIP). The Normandy map is too small, too cluttered, to be that adventurous with, you take off, look around, and all you can see are other dirt airfields, everywhere.

 

So, that's why I prefer NTTR and Caucasus.

[dburne]

I like Normandy myself, especially flying the Spitfire over it. There is also a very good campaign for it at a reasonable price.

 

The map is pretty demanding resource wise, so performance in VR is tough. I can get it smooth , but have to crank details down a good bit. It does not utilize Speedtree technology currently which probably contributes to the performance problem.

 

I do not know about how authentic it is, however I do find it to be a gorgeous map in my eyes.

[Wolf8312]

I like Normandy myself, especially flying the Spitfire over it. There is also a very good campaign for it at a reasonable price.

 

The map is pretty demanding resource wise, so performance in VR is tough. I can get it smooth , but have to crank details down a good bit. It does not utilize Speedtree technology currently which probably contributes to the performance problem.

 

I do not know about how authentic it is, however I do find it to be a gorgeous map in my eyes.

 

So I ended up getting the dora, normandy and the ww2 asset pack in the sale.

 

Initial impressions, well it certainly needs a low gamma and early or late time of day setting to do it justice, after which it looks great. The default gamma setting is absurd!

 

Trees are really too shimmery though. Performance seems fine to be honest but all I did was fly around the map. Hopefully it can handle a few dogfights!

 

Cockpit visuals actually surprised me as a little poor, not up to the standards of other DCS modules I dont think, but the actually flight model is fantastic and I feel it gives a better sensation of speed than the other sim, though havent had enough time with it to say for sure.

 

Overall all dont regret it but I consider it an investment for the future. It has the potential to be the best WW2 flight sim on the market, due to the realism, but it certainly needs alot of work.

 

Mind telling me what the campaign you mentioned is called Dburne?

 

 

Humm seem to be getting basestation flashes over normandy when either giving or receiving damage. This does not bode well. Damage model seems awful as if someone has just painted on some bullet holes without me noticing! Also I think its a steam VR problem but lately seems as if buildings/trees are more shimmery!

Edited May 10, 2018 by Wolf8312

[dburne]

Operation Epsom:

Spitfire Campaign.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=561

[westr]

I’m noticing significantly better performance in Nevada and Caucasus than Normandy with VR. It’s a shame because I love flying the warbirds but just hoping that the map will be tweaked or optimised more. If not I shall just have to wait until I upgrade my PC.

[dburne]

Yeah I did some Normandy flying this morning, first time in a while, and it is still very much demanding in VR .

[Wolf8312]

I’m noticing significantly better performance in Nevada and Caucasus than Normandy with VR. It’s a shame because I love flying the warbirds but just hoping that the map will be tweaked or optimised more. If not I shall just have to wait until I upgrade my PC.

 

 

Well I've got a pretty beefy rig and although performance with helicopters is better than ever, there seems to be something wrong with the damage models. Taking/giving damage seems to lag the game which is awful in VR. Theres a thread about it here- https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=207925, so at least I know its not my computer.

 

 

 

So I cant really play, and until this is fixed or the technology improves I wont be buying any more terrains or modules. I'm not sure if it was always this bad as I have always largely flown helicopters...

[fitness88]

I think the graphics are beautiful, amazing vibrant colors for both the landscape and the buildings. It's a bit more taxing on the computer but really not a problem. I don't find the theatre too small even when flying the F-15.