Jump to content

Where did all the WW2 people go?


flygav

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

DCS WW2 just isn't up to par. Wildly inconsistent damage, engine and flight modeling make it thoroughly unenjoyable.

So, what makes it great, absolutely realistic, the best simulation we've ever seen, makes it unenjoyable? 🤔 I guess not everybody have to enjoy the same things, that's obvious, but if you're into flight simulation I don't know why anybody would say that the realism we asked for during so many years way back in time is unenjoyable once we got it.

  • Like 2

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'd say a flight simulator, "just" a pc game after all, which is able to make you feel and understand such a thing in either aircraft type, even rotors, is just terrific and quite enjoyable for the flight simulation fan 🤷‍♂️ .

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

So, what makes it great, absolutely realistic, the best simulation we've ever seen, makes it unenjoyable? 🤔 I guess not everybody have to enjoy the same things, that's obvious, but if you're into flight simulation I don't know why anybody would say that the realism we asked for during so many years way back in time is unenjoyable once we got it.

Realism is great, but if what you are after is to fly around and flick switches the this is what MSFS is for. The place where DCS comes short is the content, the “C” of DCS.

It is clear that DCS is made for offline SP more than online MP. However, SP campaigns for most WWII modules are few and rely on private campaign makes to initiate & create them. MP servers struggle with mismatched warbirds roster. Both MP and SP also struggle with a limited selection of AI units with problematic AI.

I love the DCS mosquito as a study sim, but there are no SP campaigns for it (I know of the early access status that will drag on for years probably, and 1 campaign from Reflected that is in a holding pattern till some conditions are met).

MP pitch the Mosquito against 1945 LW’s finest rare warbirds, and if the server plays the Normandy map and follow historical home fields (4YA, good server for non mosquitos) then Mosquitoes have to fly 20-25 minutes across the channel to get to the action. N.20 server (I love it) deviates from historical accuracy in favor of better combat experience, but suffers from low population on many Euro evenings.

  • Like 2

“Mosquitoes fly, but flies don’t Mosquito” :pilotfly:

- Geoffrey de Havilland.

 

... well, he could have said it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Bozon, the N.20 server offers by far the best balance between the simulator and the GAME aspects of the DCS.

The WWII birds and the tactics are extremely hands on so when the procedural zealots begin to put realism ahead of everything else the experience suffers as it's simply not fun any longer.

I enjoy flying, bombing, and shooting and I don't give 2 cents for 'historical' aspect of anything, I simply don't care. The MP mission makers try to make the most correct historic missions and I always ask why is it needed, or why does it have to be done to the T, which objectively isn't even possible to simulate it? I understand the importance of history, the analysis of the battles to figure out the driving factors behind the victory, etc. etc., it's all extremely interesting in a reading form and using the imagination in my head. But when it comes to DCS to me it's a game first, that also happens to be an excellent simulator. Subjecting me to some weird restrictions because that what the wwii pilots had to endure is fun at first, but once it becomes clear how difficult it was in reality along with the realization that DCS/and the current tech can't model a LOT of important external factors what we are left with is some grotesquely crazy mission setup's that aren't winnable, over the top difficult, etc etc. so in the end the whole experience just .. blows.

 

edit:  and to anyone saying something stupid like "go play IL2" I say up yours. You are the problem.


Edited by peachmonkey
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ooph... that discussion again....

id be happy if there were more simple dogfight servers on stable... i dont see the point in playin on beta. 

yes we are limited to a certain number of assets but heres the thing. from 10k or 10 feet above ground you cant tell apart normandy from some fields in germany or russia. so thats the more forgiving part in that respect.

and the term "historically correct" is rather tacky as it would also imply a set outcome, or even certain events, which in a mp game, most likely will not repeat in "historically correct" manner.

did the anton fly in 45? yes. there were enough around.  did the 51d fly in 44 and 45? the dora? the spit x? k4? im no buff but at a certain point they all were. older models especially on the german side werent simply discarded but thrown into the meat grinder. the transistion to p51d happend similarly. a transistion. older models were flying until a new model was available.

did they all meet? no. 

does it really matter? well to some it seems..

however.. the only thing imho thats neglegible is the actual map as stated to the reasons above.

its a tradeoff i can live with and still have fun and dont see why my fun is supposed to be spoiled by external things.

also, if you dont like the current maps, change it. start doing mods.

ive been an active modder for over a decade mainly modding for operation flashpoint.

thats what a community thrives from... an not I WANT I WANT I WANT. dont be so small minded... appreciate what you have. that untwists your knickers rather fast...

just my 2 cents for the whole derailment here...


Edited by Doughguy
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@peachmonkey - OK, you don't care, but others do. As long as there's N.20 runnig along 4YA, there's something for everyone. In some of the recent posts You really seem to be seeking for attention and problems where there aren't any.

  • Thanks 1

i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bozon said:

Realism is great, but if what you are after is to fly around and flick switches the this is what MSFS is for. The place where DCS comes short is the content, the “C” of DCS.

It is clear that DCS is made for offline SP more than online MP. However, SP campaigns for most WWII modules are few and rely on private campaign makes to initiate & create them. MP servers struggle with mismatched warbirds roster. Both MP and SP also struggle with a limited selection of AI units with problematic AI.

I love the DCS mosquito as a study sim, but there are no SP campaigns for it (I know of the early access status that will drag on for years probably, and 1 campaign from Reflected that is in a holding pattern till some conditions are met).

MP pitch the Mosquito against 1945 LW’s finest rare warbirds, and if the server plays the Normandy map and follow historical home fields (4YA, good server for non mosquitos) then Mosquitoes have to fly 20-25 minutes across the channel to get to the action. N.20 server (I love it) deviates from historical accuracy in favor of better combat experience, but suffers from low population on many Euro evenings.

I totally agree with that, I was talking about realism in the simulation, aircraft management, flight models, physics, all the fancy stuff making this an absolutely unseen simulation ever before, while FS also aims for button clicking and so you "feel" the lack of systems behind and everything. I know that kind of "realism" is not for everyone and all. Fine, and understandable, but I personally do enjoy it very much.

But no, absolute historical realism even when we don't have all the planeset and even "groundset" necessary? I don't look for that, or maybe sometime is fine, not necessarily all the time though. I'm with you on that regard. Furthermore, I can't understand if we haven't had those absolutely fleshed out planesets and everything ever before (even the most populated simulators in the past, fleshed out with mods and everything, still lacked maps and aeroplanes…) why we have to pursue now absolute historical realism in missions and everything. We'd flown everything with substitutes since ever, aircraft, maps, all of it could be substituted and we were happy, and we made substitutions not in the pursue of absolutely realism, impossible since you're using substitutes to start with, but a historic event or whatever was just the excuse to make this or that mission, nothing more. So why new users can't stand the lack of whatever the tiniest absolutely unimportant thing to enjoy the sim is beyond my understanding, and that wasn't my point exactly or what I meant in the previous post :thumbup:.


Edited by Ala13_ManOWar

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Art-J said:

@peachmonkey - OK, you don't care, but others do. As long as there's N.20 runnig along 4YA, there's something for everyone. In some of the recent posts You really seem to be seeking for attention and problems where there aren't any.

with my short temper I'm definitely mis-representing myself, and I'm working on it, and I'm always the first one to say sorry if things go out of hand. But suffice to say the folks I talk to here have pretty short fuses themselves, so no need to paint me as a troublemaker.

However, what I seek is not the attention. I simply try to bring an 'outside' opinion into the stale world that is WWII DCS. The opinion is an answer to the ever-present question on reddit and here, such as "why nobody's playing wwii in DCS?" or "why so few players in wwii DCS?". I keep pointing out the unnecessary hardcore views for mission design that seem to always go in the same direction such as, "well, that's how it was in 1944/45", completely missing the irony of simulation of all of this on the computer. For a newcomer there's already a steep learning curve with any AC, especially if this person is just dabbing his toes in the simulation, and once the said newcomer decides to join an MP server the only option with any players on is an Ultra Hardcore MP with aimbot AA, aimbot Flak, with very little to deliver in terms of the actual gratification. Just relax it a bit. People will come. The last thing people want is to spend 30 minutes flying to the destination only to be sniped out by the ever prescient flak and/or 6xACE AA's on the ground.

anyway, I've made enough noise for the whole year. I'll shut up about it and go away. Cheers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

So, what makes it great, absolutely realistic, the best simulation we've ever seen, makes it unenjoyable? 🤔 I guess not everybody have to enjoy the same things, that's obvious, but if you're into flight simulation I don't know why anybody would say that the realism we asked for during so many years way back in time is unenjoyable once we got it.

I am not sure how to be any clearer than to repeat "wildly inconsistent damage, engine and flight modeling". 

DCS WW2 isn't the only portion of the game to suffer from this but it is the one era most affected by it.

 

 

 

 

EDsignaturefleet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really the only thing i'd like to see: a growing WWII community in DCS, a growing interest. DCS's warbirds are incredibly modelled and feel "real". DCS WWII deserve more attention, more people involved in it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll say this: 4YA WW2 / Project Overlord is a clearly advertised offer, a historically accurate DCS server within the constraints of what the game can do. Our server, our vision.

Guess what? That vision is popular and shared by a large number of players, as you can see from the Project Overlord stats page. I don't put a gun to anyone's head and say "if you fly DCS WW2 MP you must only fly here".

I'd like to see the DCS WW2 community grow. There's a dozen or more public servers out there from the likes of Growling Sidewinder and Grim Reapers. All empty.

Go to the people running those empty servers and tell them your ideas for making them popular. You don't want the historical realism thing? You prefer full spotting labels and the F10 map showing every unit on the map? BRAA calls from an omniscient AWACS on the comms menu? Ground units laid out to make funky cool war shiz happen? Base capture, Liberation style campaigns? That's cool, genuinely. All that is great fun.

Go tell the empty server owners what you want to build instead. Offer to do it as part of their team. Advertise, grow and maintain a community of likeminded players who use your server. Learn how to manipulate lua scripts and use the mission editor. Come up with ideas to attract new people and bring them into the fold. Plan and execute a strategy to retain your existing players.

I'd like to see that happen and speed up organic growth of the DCS WW2 community. Consider also these forums. Each of us is an ambassador for the game we play. Do angry posts ranting at each other make a newcomer browsing here think to himself "this looks like fun, I want to join these guys and spend my leisure hours hanging out with them". Of course not.

BTW, Bozon. We're starting work on an August 1944 mission. It has Mosquitoes in France. 🙂

  • Like 1

DCS WWII player. I run the mission design team behind 4YA WWII, the most popular DCS World War 2 server.

https://www.ProjectOverlord.co.uk - for 4YA WW2 mission stats, mission information, historical research blogs and more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Skewgear, the 4YA server is good and keeps improving. It is a very positive force in DCS WWII. Personally I don’t think that the historical accurate (within the limits) label is the thing that makes it good - rather, it serves as a lure for the players that wish to claim they are the hardest hard core. 
 

The “most populated” title does not reflect correctly on the other servers - in a small player base there is an instability where the server with more players will draw the players away from the other servers, leaving them next to empty. When I log in and see 2 players on N.20 I will choose 4YA and fly a channel crossing mission even if it means I will have time for just 1 sortie.  By the way, I usually fly solo - I need human opponents to fear, even if I manage to sneak in, strike, and egress without being engaged. Fear is excitement, and I don’t get that in an empty server, no matter how good the server is set up.

btw, there is the “player deliverable” mosquito slots on the continent fields - is this 1 to 1? i.e., if I end my sortie there, 1 mosquito becomes available for the next sortie?

“Mosquitoes fly, but flies don’t Mosquito” :pilotfly:

- Geoffrey de Havilland.

 

... well, he could have said it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 12 Stunden schrieb =475FG= Dawger:

I am not sure how to be any clearer than to repeat "wildly inconsistent damage, engine and flight modeling". 

DCS WW2 isn't the only portion of the game to suffer from this but it is the one era most affected by it.

I'm with you on damage, but I think that's just due to the bad netcode of DCS.

but what do they mean by " inconsistent  engine and flight modeling" do you have examples?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hobel said:

I'm with you on damage, but I think that's just due to the bad netcode of DCS.

but what do they mean by " inconsistent  engine and flight modeling" do you have examples?

 

Some engines can run for a very long time without liquid coolant yet others seize up within seconds is one example. 
 

The primary example of inconsistent flight modeling is in regard to engine torque. In some aircraft, the physics of a large motor swinging a large prop are completely absent above stall speed while on others you do feel some torque throughout the flight regime.

With engine torque being the defining characteristic of single engine prop fighters, it is a gaping hole in the flight model. And I know most WW2 players think torque is modeled perfectly and will now proceed to trot out the same defenses to refute the above statement.

They need not bother. I know why ALL WW2 flight “simulations” do this with engine torque.
 

In any case, torque modeling isn’t the primary reason we (my group) do not fly WW2 in DCS any longer. Suffice it to say if the damage and engine modeling did not make MP WW2 fairly miserable, the torque issue could be lived with.

  • Like 3

 

 

 

 

EDsignaturefleet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I am not sure how to be any clearer than to repeat "wildly inconsistent damage, engine and flight modeling". 

DCS WW2 isn't the only portion of the game to suffer from this but it is the one era most affected by it.

You made clear you don't get how or why engine management and flight model are like that (damage model could be debatable, I guess). I tell you the secret, it works like that in real life. I can't see that "wild" inconsistency. I you don't mind please explain your point further since just saying "it's all bad" doesn't tell me absolutely anything and I would like to understand what's your point here.

  • Like 1

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

You made clear you don't get how or why engine management and flight model are like that (damage model could be debatable, I guess). I tell you the secret, it works like that in real life. I can't see that "wild" inconsistency. I you don't mind please explain your point further since just saying "it's all bad" doesn't tell me absolutely anything and I would like to understand what's your point here.

As I have over 5000 hours in actual (not virtual) WWII era propeller driven aircraft as well as quite a bit of time in other propeller driven aircraft, I think I can safely say that I beg to differ. 

You don't want to understand my point. You aren't interested in anything other than affirmation of your viewpoint.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

 

 

 

 

EDsignaturefleet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 25 Minuten schrieb Ala13_ManOWar:

You made clear you don't get how or why engine management and flight model are like that (damage model could be debatable, I guess). I tell you the secret, it works like that in real life. I can't see that "wild" inconsistency. I you don't mind please explain your point further since just saying "it's all bad" doesn't tell me absolutely anything and I would like to understand what's your point here.

I could mention one point here.  You can separate both coolers on the Bf109 and still the 109 can fly +30min at full power without problems

Bug report here

 

Perhaps there are similar problems with other aircraft that he is addressing.

 

The torque could be difficult, how do we know that it is not right as it is?  The ww2 planes are partly very different.  Pilots of that time already report the enormous differences between 109 and 190.   Nevertheless, from my personal point of view would have to be made here and there, small adjustments to make dcs ww2 even better.

 

As an example the pilot  who is flying the real p51 and evaluating the landing behavior of the in dcs.
"could be better"

 

Little things that make a big difference.    


Edited by Hobel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

As I have over 5000 hours in actual (not virtual) WWII era propeller driven aircraft as well as quite a bit of time in other propeller driven aircraft, I think I can safely say that I beg to differ. 

You don't want to understand my point. You aren't interested in anything other than affirmation of your viewpoint.

Thanks for telling me what's in my mind, I couldn't tell by myself. Still, just saying "it's wildly inconsistent" without any further detail tells me nothing.

 

And, by the way, what a privileged person you are, 5000 flight hours time only in warbirds is probably something not even Nick Grey owning his own warbirds collection can tell!! Bearing in mind warbirds flight hours are in the thousands of dollars you're also a rich person. How amazing having all that experience and money to come to a "game" forum to tell it's all wrong 😉 .

Jokes aside, yes, I meant to try to understand and know what that "wild inconsistency" is about. But of course only if I'm worthy of those explanations facing such an important and privileged person I can only dream myself, but I would like to be and get to know those if I may. Thanks. I'll now retire slowly walking backwards while I bow before you (again, jokes aside I would like to now).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hobel said:

I could mention one point here.  You can separate both coolers on the Bf109 and still the 109 can fly +30min at full power without problems

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/279042-complete-radiator-shutdown-does-not-cause-engine-stall/#comment-4747856

 

Perhaps there are similar problems with other aircraft that he is addressing.

 

The torque could be difficult, how do we know that it is not right as it is?  The ww2 planes are partly very different.  Pilots of that time already report the enormous differences between 109 and 190.   Nevertheless, from my personal point of view would have to be made here and there, small adjustments to make dcs ww2 even better.

 

As an example the pilot  who is flying the real p51 and evaluating the landing behavior of the in dcs.
"could be better"

 

Little things that make a big difference.    

We aren't talking about possible bugs or whatever, I really want to know what the "wild inconsistencies" in DCS warbirds are . I know it could be better, it can always be better, still that's not "wildly inconsistent", it's only a pc game we're in front of and only that makes it impossible to be absolutely real for the time being no matter how much we would want that.

Funnily enough, the owner of DCS, owner of a warbird collection, and having countless hours of experience made that FM exactly to match what he know about the aircraft. I cannot tell that for sure, but I do know other pilots with no gaming and/or simulation experience aim for wrong things when they are in front of a screen, so pretty usual they don't like what they don't know and all they can say is "it's all wrong". It isn't, what's wrong is them not having gaming experience and knowing what can and cannot be done in a pc game. It's so funny when they say torque, or whatever behaviour is wrong, they crash on take off, and hey, it must be wrong because I'm a pretty accomplished pilot. Well, no sir, it isn't wrong, it is you're seeking a feeling you won't find in front of the screen… Real pilots not always cut it in assessing a simulation value, usually they haven't the faintest, indeed.


Edited by Ala13_ManOWar

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 50 Minuten schrieb Ala13_ManOWar:

We aren't talking about possible bugs or whatever, I really want to know what the "wild inconsistencies" in DCS warbirds are . I know it could be better, it can always be better, still that's not "wildly inconsistent", it's only a pc game we're in front of and only that makes it impossible to be absolutely real for the time being no matter how much we would want that.

Funnily enough, the owner of DCS, owner of a warbird collection, and having countless hours of experience made that FM exactly to match what he know about the aircraft. I cannot tell that for sure, but I do know other pilots with no gaming and/or simulation experience aim for wrong things when they are in front of a screen, so pretty usual they don't like what they don't know and all they can say is "it's all wrong". It isn't, what's wrong is them not having gaming experience and knowing what can and cannot be done in a pc game. It's so funny when they say torque, or whatever behaviour is wrong, they crash on take off, and hey, it must be wrong because I'm a pretty accomplished pilot. Well, no sir, it isn't wrong, it is you're seeking a feeling you won't find in front of the screen… Real pilots no always cut it in assessing a simulation value, usually they haven't the faintest, indeed.

 

 to me it sounds like he means bugs as well. His example sounds exactly like the behavior shown in my bug report

And also, the cooling system of dcs is still on wip, which among other things triggers the problems he is addressing.  But as you said, he would have to be a bit more specific.

 

 

 

How do you actually know that Nick has and flies ww2 planes, are there any videos about it or anything?

 

 

Edit:

I don't think he has little experience in sim/game, rather the opposite, I've seen him and his people in countless other sims over the years.

And the mentioned pilot in my example, has also compared other sims with dcs and in this scenario dcs cut off worse than the other sim. And also he has some experience in sims to 

Don't get me wrong, the ww2 planes feel fantastic on the whole.


Edited by Hobel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
2 minutes ago, Hobel said:

How do you actually know that Nick has and flies ww2 planes, are there any videos about it or anything?

https://fighter-collection.com/cft/

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
11 minutes ago, Hobel said:

Ah thank you bignewy

No problem, 

you wont find anyone better than Nick Grey with an understanding of real warbird flight and the simulation world. 

  • Like 2

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hobel said:

 

 to me it sounds like he means bugs as well. His example sounds exactly like the behavior shown in my bug report

And also, the cooling system of dcs is still on wip, which among other things triggers the problems he is addressing.  But as you said, he would have to be a bit more specific.

 

 

 

How do you actually know that Nick has and flies ww2 planes, are there any videos about it or anything?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fighter_Collection

https://www.facebook.com/FlyingLegendsOfficial

https://www.flyinglegends.com/

Has some old interviews, with Nick Grey has talked about Warbirds, The fighter collection, your pilot, enginering and warbird restorer experience.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...