Where did all the WW2 people go?

[Callsign112]

3 hours ago, Baltic Dude said:

 

I have spent already something like $500 dollars on DCS, MORE when you include my HOTAS, pedals and Track-IR. If you want more people to try DCS WWII, they need to make WWII Assets pack free. There is a reason why people get into IL-2 first and foremost before trying out DCS: WWII. I have paid my dues, do not tell me I haven't contributed to DCS' development. Not to mention, people can't even take-off from the Kuznetsov aircraft carrier online without payment of NATO's Supercarrier module even if you purchased Su-33. Little things like this that require the purchase of $50 modules absolutely turn people away from an otherwise enjoyable experience.

 

I think you have explained the problem quite well.

You are comparing two things that don't actually compare well with each other.

You noticed that another product is put together more as a bundled offer. I think that's great, and I know it serves its customer base well if that is what your looking for.

The takeaway here should be if you want a bundled system like that, then you have to take it as it is. In other words, you have to take all its good points with all its bad points and just enjoy the purchase you made.

You can't hand pick what you like from different business models to come up with your own version of what company A, or B should be doing. Company A does things the way it does for a reason just as Company B does.

I am contributing to a thread on the DCS forum because I am 100% behind ED and its DCS World product line. But I also own the other product you mentioned, and I will tell anyone interested that they are both great products. They are very different from each other, but both are great just the same.  

So IMO, what both companies should do is what ever is needed to keep their respective doors open for business. 

Regarding the Kuznetsov, I got that along with the Su-33 for free when I purchased the Super Carrier module, so I was pretty happy with that. I realize some people purchased the Su-33 as part of the FC3 product before the release of the Super Carrier, but I don't think it's fair to hold the fact that they weren't able to make the SC sooner against them. Video game development is an iterative process, and things like that are unavoidable.

I appreciate that you are a member of this community and that you have contributed to the development of DCS World. I also hope you continue enjoying using the DCS platform.

 

[NineLine]

Guys, please try not to reference other games please. Thanks

[red23]

I will be on the Wolf Pack sever Normandy dynamic base capture (Wolf Pack US 02 - warbirds) around 8-830. if you just put in "wolf pack" in the search you'll find it. plenty of targets and secondary targets, bomber escort/intercept and always a good dogfight or two. Join us on discord ( https://discord.gg/gMzW5A3n , also SRS will be up and running.

 

(WP) Red23

[NineLine]

On 7/1/2022 at 9:09 AM, =475FG= Dawger said:

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

I am not sure what you mean about this... this seems like an odd comment for sure.

[grafspee]

21 hours ago, NineLine said:

Guys, please try not to reference other games please. Thanks

It is so so hard to resist not to

[=475FG= Dawger]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

I am not sure what you mean about this... this seems like an odd comment for sure.

As an example, one liquid cooled engine can fly a limitless time with no coolant in the system and another will crack the block, evacuate all the coolant and seize in seconds if flown at high power and low airspeed for more than a few seconds.

Both are obviously not very realistic although at opposite ends of the spectrum.

From a damage model standpoint, there is a WWII module that can absorb the whole nine yards with minimal damage and other modules that seem to be made of glass.

Inconsistent.

Yes, I know you are going to tell me they are different aircraft so you can't expect them to be exactly the same.

Yes, I know I am wasting my time pointing this out as you are here more for PR damage control than actually trying to figure out what the issue might be.

But you quoted me, I got the notification and the Law of the Internet requires a response.

I will make you a deal. Ignore all my previous posts on WWII issues in DCS and I will continue to ignore the WWII DCS modules I wasted a few hundred dollars on.

[Hobel]

The thing is, a new cooling system has been announced, so some things are still wip

We still have to wait for that now.

 

 

  Is there already information how far the whole thing is and how long it will take?

[razo+r]

 

41 minutes ago, Hobel said:

 Is there already information how far the whole thing is and how long it will take?

As usual with any information related to DCS WWII: No infos/details given

Edited August 11, 2022 by razo+r

[Baltic Dude]

>Where did they all go?
With the price to entry (WWII Assets) and little players online? Hmm, I wonder...

[amazingme]

On 8/11/2022 at 1:41 AM, =475FG= Dawger said:

As an example, one liquid cooled engine can fly a limitless time with no coolant in the system and another will crack the block, evacuate all the coolant and seize in seconds if flown at high power and low airspeed for more than a few seconds.

Both are obviously not very realistic although at opposite ends of the spectrum.

From a damage model standpoint, there is a WWII module that can absorb the whole nine yards with minimal damage and other modules that seem to be made of glass.

Inconsistent.

Yes, I know you are going to tell me they are different aircraft so you can't expect them to be exactly the same.

Yes, I know I am wasting my time pointing this out as you are here more for PR damage control than actually trying to figure out what the issue might be.

But you quoted me, I got the notification and the Law of the Internet requires a response.

I will make you a deal. Ignore all my previous posts on WWII issues in DCS and I will continue to ignore the WWII DCS modules I wasted a few hundred dollars on.

You forgot the poorly collision damage model and its inconsistencies among the modules..

There are some 'masochistic' guys who fly the Axis planes online on [4YA] Server, if anyone is eager to join us there, you're more than welcome. But nevertheless, I do feel that I'm slowly and surely drifting away from DCS because of the reasons mentioned previously and much more (since you mentioned the PR)..

Where did everybody go? That's a rhetorical question for sure.. It's sad..

[BIGNEWY]

On 7/1/2022 at 5:09 PM, =475FG= Dawger said:

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

For now, my group (Historically, a WW2 group) is flying Cold War 1947-1991 for the most part with some holding their nose and flying in Enigma as well.

would you care to share example tracks showing what you claim? 

On 8/10/2022 at 11:41 PM, =475FG= Dawger said:

As an example, one liquid cooled engine can fly a limitless time with no coolant in the system and another will crack the block, evacuate all the coolant and seize in seconds if flown at high power and low airspeed for more than a few seconds.

Both are obviously not very realistic although at opposite ends of the spectrum.

From a damage model standpoint, there is a WWII module that can absorb the whole nine yards with minimal damage and other modules that seem to be made of glass.

Inconsistent.

Yes, I know you are going to tell me they are different aircraft so you can't expect them to be exactly the same.

Yes, I know I am wasting my time pointing this out as you are here more for PR damage control than actually trying to figure out what the issue might be.

But you quoted me, I got the notification and the Law of the Internet requires a response.

I will make you a deal. Ignore all my previous posts on WWII issues in DCS and I will continue to ignore the WWII DCS modules I wasted a few hundred dollars on.

You have given your feedbak and we are happy to look into it, but you will need to provide track replay examples so we can check them. 

[NineLine]

On 8/10/2022 at 3:41 PM, =475FG= Dawger said:

As an example, one liquid cooled engine can fly a limitless time with no coolant in the system and another will crack the block, evacuate all the coolant and seize in seconds if flown at high power and low airspeed for more than a few seconds.

Both are obviously not very realistic although at opposite ends of the spectrum.

From a damage model standpoint, there is a WWII module that can absorb the whole nine yards with minimal damage and other modules that seem to be made of glass.

Inconsistent.

Yes, I know you are going to tell me they are different aircraft so you can't expect them to be exactly the same.

Yes, I know I am wasting my time pointing this out as you are here more for PR damage control than actually trying to figure out what the issue might be.

But you quoted me, I got the notification and the Law of the Internet requires a response.

I will make you a deal. Ignore all my previous posts on WWII issues in DCS and I will continue to ignore the WWII DCS modules I wasted a few hundred dollars on.

Well that is a very vague post, I have yet to see a module fly with no coolant for very long.

As the coolant system goes, the new system is currently in early testing, but regardless a plane without coolant should not last long, and thats a bug and I would love to see a track.

As for the other comments, again, very vague and unspecific, I would love to see these tracks or examples... 

Thanks

[Hobel]

vor einer Stunde schrieb NineLine:

Well that is a very vague post, I have yet to see a module fly with no coolant for very long.

As the coolant system goes, the new system is currently in early testing, but regardless a plane without coolant should not last long, and thats a bug and I would love to see a track.

As for the other comments, again, very vague and unspecific, I would love to see these tracks or examples... 

Thanks

He means the k4, I made a bug report about a 1 year ago, but it should still be up to date.

  And the plane that explodes too fast is the p51.   But as I said, there is something coming for us.

 

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

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, Hobel said:

He means the k4, I made a bug report about a 1 year ago, but it should still be up to date.

  And the plane that explodes too fast is the p51.   But as I said, there is something coming for us.

 

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

The K4 can run out of coolant and keep running?

[Catseye]

I've spent years in DCS with all the warbirds.

I have finally had to put them back in the box and taken out the F-16. I do this because of a very IMHO incomplete series of products that has caused me no end of frustrations over the years. Particularly the development of individual and incomplete aircraft without what appears to be much thought in the holistic issues of theaters, opponents, logical progressions of conflicts disjointed theater offerings and more. It seems to me that if a development group can make a warbird for ED, then they are in but without the forthought of the bigger picture we the consumers require to maintain enthusiasm in a product. Limited longevity!

Trying to get time online with many other virtual pilots is restricted to two main servers and they have limited numbers by timezone. But, go to a modern jet and there are many servers and many online participants at any one time. In order to fulfill my personal desire for more community interraction, I am forced to go where that action is. That action at this time is not in any way fulfilled by WWII products and scenarios.

I am saddened by this but I must go  . . . . 

 

[NineLine]

16 minutes ago, Catseye said:

I've spent years in DCS with all the warbirds.

I have finally had to put them back in the box and taken out the F-16. I do this because of a very IMHO incomplete series of products that has caused me no end of frustrations over the years. Particularly the development of individual and incomplete aircraft without what appears to be much thought in the holistic issues of theaters, opponents, logical progressions of conflicts disjointed theater offerings and more. It seems to me that if a development group can make a warbird for ED, then they are in but without the forthought of the bigger picture we the consumers require to maintain enthusiasm in a product. Limited longevity!

Trying to get time online with many other virtual pilots is restricted to two main servers and they have limited numbers by timezone. But, go to a modern jet and there are many servers and many online participants at any one time. In order to fulfill my personal desire for more community interraction, I am forced to go where that action is. That action at this time is not in any way fulfilled by WWII products and scenarios.

I am saddened by this but I must go  . . . . 

 

Thank you for your feedback, and thank you for your honesty, I get it guys, and I feel your pain, WWII is my passion as well. I do love modern fighters the A-10C II is so much fun but I would much rather ground pound in WWII. So please do not feel ignored, I know its hard not to but we do have some things in progress and I will bring these concerns and messages to the team as well.

[marcost]

19 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Thank you for your feedback, and thank you for your honesty, I get it guys, and I feel your pain, WWII is my passion as well. I do love modern fighters the A-10C II is so much fun but I would much rather ground pound in WWII. So please do not feel ignored, I know its hard not to but we do have some things in progress and I will bring these concerns and messages to the team as well.

I for one appreciate the continued development, regardless of the pace. When I compare what we have today vs. what was available in combat flight sims when I started simming 30+ years ago, it makes every flight an absolute joy. For me, DCS is getting close to achieving what my vision of a combat flight sim was all those years ago.

 

Regards,

 

M

[Hobel]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb NineLine:

The K4 can run out of coolant and keep running?

too, but I'll have to test that more carefully.

But if you use both "Manual Coolant Valve
Control" (DCS K4 manual 134) should have a similar effect.

 

[Skewgear]

2 hours ago, Catseye said:

Trying to get time online with many other virtual pilots is restricted to two main servers and they have limited numbers by timezone. But, go to a modern jet and there are many servers and many online participants at any one time. In order to fulfill my personal desire for more community interraction, I am forced to go where that action is. That action at this time is not in any way fulfilled by WWII products and scenarios.

I am saddened by this but I must go  . . . . 

 

Part of the problem is nobody's willing to invest the time in attracting and building a new community. Instead you've got the same 500-600 players per month flitting between the same servers. Starting a new WW2 server becomes an exercise in cannibalising the existing player base and finding increasingly imaginative ways of saying "don't play over there, play here instead". There's no growth.

A small team with imagination could easily build something compelling that attracts the jet players to try something new. But it needs a lot of dedicated marketing. We've talked internally about bringing the mainstream 4YA PVE style missions with BDA and F10 map fully enabled to our WW2 training server and perhaps as the season changes we'll dedicate some time to making that a reality. If it brings new players to the WW2 fold, that's a benefit for all of us.

Project Overlord is great fun but is very hard core by its nature. It's not really a place to learn, and if DCS WW2 multiplayer is going to grow, we need well-marketed servers aimed at newbies and casuals.

[HotTom]

What appears to have happened with WWII players is they are divided between Multiplayer and Single Player (or Gamers vs Simmers), a divide found in many sims.

Edited August 18, 2022 by HotTom

[FlyBy2507]

2 hours ago, marcost said:

I for one appreciate the continued development, regardless of the pace. When I compare what we have today vs. what was available in combat flight sims when I started simming 30+ years ago, it makes every flight an absolute joy. For me, DCS is getting close to achieving what my vision of a combat flight sim was all those years ago.

 

Regards,

 

M

In 30 years someone will say exactly the same.  

[Hobel]

vor 52 Minuten schrieb Skewgear:

Project Overlord is great fun but is very hard core by its nature. It's not really a place to learn, and if DCS WW2 multiplayer is going to grow, we need well-marketed servers aimed at newbies and casuals.

In my opinion, the missions of the existing PvP servers are simply too big and too time-consuming.

-Targets are spread all over the map
-Too many active airports
-Players are too scattered
-too few players ~30-60 planes spread all over Normandy?
-server unattractive to join when only a few are on it

3 active airports with a few targets in a certain area would be more than enough for the beginning and for casual players and all those who are looking for dogfight in such an environment.

 

 

it could look like this and in other sims/games this principle is very popular

Edited August 18, 2022 by Hobel

[Baltic Dude]

On 8/9/2022 at 6:00 AM, Doughguy said:

People tend to forget the sheer scope of dcs and each module that it brings with... i consider each module an actual "game"... anyone recall falcon 4.0? No?

This is true for their jet modules but not for WWII. There is not enough content or scope for WWII to be worth the price of entry when (other similar games) for example is so cheap on sale without being so limited. I am not trying to bash the game, but give a real suggestion to improve the experience and grow the player base which is to make WWII Assets F2P, it would make people especially on Steam want to fly the TF-51 and purchase WWII modules as well as server owners spending more time developing experiences that EVERYONE can enjoy. This way, more people can get into DCS - WWII and players purchasing first and *multiple* WWII modules would offset the cost of making Assets free. The maps can remain paid however I am unsure what ED will do about The Channel with Normandy existing, being so similar for WWII servers.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Baltic Dude

[ak22]

Charging for assets doesn't help 

Edited August 18, 2022 by ak22

[NineLine]

20 minutes ago, ak22 said:

Charging for assets doesn't help 

 

That isn't going to change, we as a company need to have a Return on Investment, paid assets is sadly what needs to be done. That said, it goes on sale for 50% off on a regular basis making it only 15.00 USD. The thread is about where did the WWII people go, in that suggesting current WWII (which most own the Asset Pack already) people have left, I don't think bringing up the asset price every time is the answer to everything.