Normandy 2.0 FAQ

[RafaPolit]

4 minutes ago, Ydjslm said:

It's unfair for players who have bought both Normandy map and Channel map.

...

Change '[...]' into 'DCS: Normandy 2 will be available as a complete map for $59.99 USD. If you have DCS: Normandy 1944, you can purchase Normandy 2 for $14.99 USD.',then I will say nothing.

So you are trying to make it "more fair" for owners of both maps by charging them more for the upgrade?  How is that "better"?  I own both maps and I wouldn't prefer your solution over the current one.

[GUFA]

7 minutes ago, RafaPolit said:

but the maps are more than just square miles!  They allow you to "tell the story" of your flights. 

I think of maps as the paper the story is written on, the player(s) making the marks on that paper.

[RafaPolit]

There is one more possible solution that would “appease” the campaign scenario: after the release of V2, new users purchase “only” Normandy (not v1 or v2), and they get BOTH v1 and v2 versions.  That way, if the purchase a campaign made for v1, they can still play it.

 

It’s not great, but is less “wrong”

[Barrett_g]

Good point about the campaign builders.

 

This cluster bomb of a mangled map nonsense is really tough for campaign makers that want to stand by their work.

 

DCS is already a pretty large burden for campaign builders… every time flak is buffed or nerfed, a good campaign builder has to go in and adjust his missions.

 

When AI is adjusted, all those missions will need to be adjusted as well.

 

It’s a tall order as it is… now they’ve introduced a 3rd map that may or may not be backwards compatible with the old map.

 

Im afraid this is going to scare off campaign builders and kill new WWII content.  It’s much easier to make a F-16 campaign for the Syria map.

[Gunfreak]

Not only is is bad form that reflected gets the short straw, and his campaigns now will be harder to sell.

And it's bad from that now players will have to buy 3 maps instead of 3 maps(which was already 1 map too many) to play ww2 Campaigns. 

But even for us that already have both maps(soon 3 maps) and already have all the ww2 campaigns, are we really gonna feel motivated to play campaigns we know are on a lesser quality map?

On Normandy 1 map as soon as you get 20 000 feet and even close to the borders of the map you see this large swathes of what looks like desert. That's annoying already,  but now we'll know there is a map where this doesn't happen. I'm not particularly motivated to play the Charnwood campaign from ED knowing I'm flying on the "bad map"

I'll force myself to fly reflected campaigns,  just because they are so good.

[Cowboy10uk]

10 hours ago, barry_c said:

Go and look at the WW2 MP population 1 year ago versus today, ED have since revised that number btw, saying it's now about 50/50 IIRC.

 

Having that area low res, plus historically inaccurate airfields, Heathrow, Farnborough, looking at you, just makes me think this is a waste of time, imagine the awkward flightpaths you'll have to take if you want to avoid the low res area, the low res area will end up completely disused and frankly ruins the potential for this map.

Are people with dedicated servers expected to have to install all 3 too? Channel is bigger than normandy in Gb, Normandy 1 already isn't small, we're going to end up with ridiculous install sizes now...

To be fair though, Heathrow and Farnborough are NOT historically inaccurate airfields for the time though.  Granted they were significantly smaller than they are now, Heathrow was basically a grass field and a single small terminal, but they ARE airfields that were in use during the time period this map is covering.       An airfield doesn’t have to be military to be seen in a military sim.     I would expect ALL airfields in the area to be included in the map, so I am slightly disappointed not to see Odiham or Benson in the map,  but I’m hoping they will turn up later.

 

The disappointing news here is the obvious decision to make the channel section low res to force players to purchase the channel map, rather than merge the area into one ww2 map, that’s a decision that is clearly made for profits rather than ease of use and the improvement of the sim.   ( guess it’s one of the drawbacks splitting the world into small chunks and having multiple 3rd party manufacturers building and designing maps.    
 

They all work against each other rather than together )   And the fact that the current campaigns won’t work with this map despite it covering the same areas.    So we now have to install 3 maps all covering the same area depending on what campaign we want to use. With the associated large hard drive usage for each map.

For myself this drops the Normandy 2.0 map from a essential must have to one I may pick up at some point.  IF I still need to have all my other maps installed, and if I can’t use my campaigns for the same area with it then honestly at this point it’s very hard to justify purchasing it even at $9.99 

[NineLine]

5 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

And it's bad from that now players will have to buy 3 maps instead of 3 maps(which was already 1 map too many) to play ww2 Campaigns. 

Huh? If you own the original Normandy and The Channel you have to only pay 9.99usd. if you don't own any you can buy what you like based on what you are wanting to do. 

Sadly compatibility will be tough for some existing airfields such as Tangmere as it gets updated to the appropriate layout. For MP it will be a little easier as you can pick another airfield to fly from.

If some one makes a Hornet campaign on the PG map, and you like it then they make another one on Syria and you don't own it, isn't that the same issue? You have to buy the map for the campaign? In this case it's a cheaper process as there are discounts in place 

Another example is The Caucasus, it will be a long time before that is updated in any form beyond what ur is now because of the hundreds upon hundreds of missions, campaigns and training missions it would most likely break 

I will say I have been flying some missions from Normandy 1 in Normandy 2 without issue, so they might be leaning on cautious about that right now. It's best to see how this develops before getting to angsty.

4 minutes ago, Cowboy10uk said:

now, Heathrow was basically a grass field and a single small terminal

In 44 it was under construction so I doubt anything was flying from it, but I am asking about it 

[burritto]

15 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Sadly compatibility will be tough for some existing airfields such as Tangmere as it gets updated to the appropriate layout. For MP it will be a little easier as you can pick another airfield to fly from.

What happens when a player with just Normandy 1 spawns at a field on a Normandy 2 MP server that isn't on the Normandy 1 map? Are collisions between aircraft and structures handled on the client or the server?  If he taxies through a hangar that he can't see, will he see himself catch fire , or would players with Normandy 2 see him catch fire or just taxi through the buildings? Please tell us you've tested this before claiming Normandy 1 players can join MP servers running Normandy 2.

[Gunfreak]

36 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Huh? If you own the original Normandy and The Channel you have to only pay 9.99usd. if you don't own any you can buy what you like based on what you are wanting to do. 

 

Yes and if a new player wants to fly the big show campgian and beware beware they have to buy 2 maps, and if he wants to fly a 3rd campaign released for Normandy 2 later. He'll have to buy a 3rd map. It was bad enough you had to buy 2 maps to play ww2 campaigns, now you have to buy 3. And when flying campaigns on the old Normandy map, it will leave you with a sour taste, knowing you are flying on the sub quality map compared the new Normandy map.

The original relase news made it sound like at least the Normandy 1 campaigns could be transferred quite easily, and this was one of the main reasons many were exited for the new map.

[Silver_Dragon]

Yes and if a new player wants to fly the big show campgian and beware beware they have to buy 2 maps, and if he wants to fly a 3rd campaign released for Normandy 2 later. He'll have to buy a 3rd map. It was bad enough you had to buy 2 maps to play ww2 campaigns, now you have to buy 3. And when flying campaigns on the old Normandy map, it will leave you with a sour taste, knowing you are flying on the sub quality map compared the new Normandy map.
The original relase news made it sound like at least the Normandy 1 campaigns could be transferred quite easily, and this was one of the main reasons many were exited for the new map.

Don't intent convert them on a crusade vs ED as the WW2 assets pack or WW2 inself. The Normandy 2 has been a Ugra Media develop decision, no ED, and UM has very clear about them.

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

[Hiob]

15 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Yes and if a new player wants to fly the big show campgian and beware beware they have to buy 2 maps, and if he wants to fly a 3rd campaign released for Normandy 2 later. He'll have to buy a 3rd map. It was bad enough you had to buy 2 maps to play ww2 campaigns, now you have to buy 3. And when flying campaigns on the old Normandy map, it will leave you with a sour taste, knowing you are flying on the sub quality map compared the new Normandy map.

The original relase news made it sound like at least the Normandy 1 campaigns could be transferred quite easily, and this was one of the main reasons many were exited for the new map.

What do you expect? Stop creators from doing campaigns for whatever map they want? Nobody is forcing you to play every campaign. If you don't own the map and don't intend to buy it, you can't play a campaign that is specifically created for that map. That's completely normal for modern theaters, why should it be any different for WWII.

[GUFA]

31 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Yes and if a new player wants to fly the big show campaign and beware beware they have to buy 2 maps, and if he wants to fly a 3rd campaign released for Normandy 2 later.

Yes would very much like to how ED/ Ugra intend to resolve this. Will V.1 &V2.0 be required to be separate folders, or will they be merged? For the new player I am assuming that they only need/ be sold Normandy V.2.0. Is this assumption correct?

Edited October 11, 2022 by GUFA
improving comprehension for reader

[Snappy]

25 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Don't intent convert them on a crusade vs ED as the WW2 assets pack or WW2 inself. The Normandy 2 has been a Ugra Media develop decision, no ED, and UM has very clear about them.

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk
 

Oh please stop it. Seriously, even if Ugra is a 3rd party, you can t really be that naive to believe ED does not have a serious say in 3rd party development.

Its obvious they do and they have to give their nod for approval for 3rd party module inclusion, be it aircraft or map.

All in all this leaves a bad taste so far in my opinion, especially since it’s looks like valuable content creators like @Reflectedget shafted, by raising the barrier to enjoying their campaigns with additional preconditional  purchases required.

Really ED should be appreciative that these 3rd party campaign creators are there and help attract people with their campaigns to EDs half-baked WWII scene, but instead of supporting them, they seem to make it more difficult for them, with these strange map development decisions..

Edited October 11, 2022 by Snappy

[Reflected]

3 minutes ago, Snappy said:

All in all this leaves a bad taste so far in my opinion, especially since it’s looks like valuable content creators like @Reflectedget shafted, by raising the barrier to enjoying their campaigns with additional preconditional  purchases required.

 

Let's wait and see how it will work out in game, we don't know yet. All we have is contradictory info at the moment. And once we do know, I'll check with ED about the best solution in order not to raise that barrier, because I don't want that either. On the other hand I don't want my campaigns to not take advantage of something cool and new in the WW2 scene. Again, we shall see.

[burritto]

20 minutes ago, GUFA said:

Is this assumption correct?

If you read the replies above from 9L, then no. Normandy 1944 and Normandy 2 are different modules and will have different installs.  If you want to play Reflected's (or anyone else's Normandy 1944 campaigns) then you'll need to buy the old map. If you buy the new map you can't play them, despite what was said in the newsletter and over the weekend. If you buy the new map first (and who wouldn't) and then decide you like WW2 and want to try a campaign, you'll need to buy Normandy 1944 at full price (or in a sale), or The Channel for those that run on that one, again at full price (or in a sale).  So it's hard to see how this won't impact negatively on the work that content creators have put into their existing campaigns for sales moving forward.  With the Channel area seemingly a bit of an unknown (will it be modelled in high res in the future?), then it's probably best for content creators to stay away from developing future stuff for that part of the map until some time has passed and things are better understood.

Edited October 11, 2022 by burritto
typos

[GUFA]

1 hour ago, Reflected said:

Let's wait and see how it will work out in game, we don't know yet. All we have is contradictory info at the moment. And once we do know, I'll check with ED about the best solution in order not to raise that barrier, because I don't want that either. On the other hand I don't want my campaigns to not take advantage of something cool and new in the WW2 scene. Again, we shall see.

This is a Q&A so I don't think it is wrong to bring any of these issues discussed now. It is beneficial to work out these problems while they are still minor, rather than later. that said give ED/3rd parties time to reflect then propose the solutions.( a Few days at least).

Edited October 11, 2022 by GUFA

[GUFA]

9 minutes ago, burritto said:

If you read the replies above from 9L, then no. Normandy 1944 and Normandy 2 are different modules and will have different installs. 

Was just asking mainly because of users who have limited storage. I just installed a 2TB SSD solely for DCS, but It might be a problem for some

PS. Also dont own N V.1 currently.

Edited October 11, 2022 by GUFA

[JokerMan]

ED, the N2 headline had me excited for finally, a consolidated map with approriate period correct airfields and target infrastructure.

Instead, the WW2 map strategy remains messy and has even grown bigger.

And as for the top right corner of N2, why? 

 

S!

 

 

[Vatikus]

16 minutes ago, JokerMan said:

And as for the top right corner of N2, why?

They hope that will be enough to sell you 2 maps and not just 1

[BIGNEWY]

2 hours ago, Snappy said:

Oh please stop it. Seriously, even if Ugra is a 3rd party, you can t really be that naive to believe ED does not have a serious say in 3rd party development.

Its obvious they do and they have to give their nod for approval for 3rd party module inclusion, be it aircraft or map.

All in all this leaves a bad taste so far in my opinion, especially since it’s looks like valuable content creators like @Reflectedget shafted, by raising the barrier to enjoying their campaigns with additional preconditional  purchases required.

Really ED should be appreciative that these 3rd party campaign creators are there and help attract people with their campaigns to EDs half-baked WWII scene, but instead of supporting them, they seem to make it more difficult for them, with these strange map development decisions..

 

Ugra Media are obviously passionate about Normandy and want to bring to us all new features, higher detail and a larger area, why would we ( ED ) stop them? 
They have offered amazing discounts for owners of Normandy and The Channel, compatibility with campaigns ( with current terrains ) and multiplayer. 

At the end of the day it is optional, if you dont like it you dont have to upgrade.

[Barrett_g]

5 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Ugra Media are obviously passionate about Normandy and want to bring to us all new features, higher detail and a larger area, why would we ( ED ) stop them? 
They have offered amazing discounts for owners of Normandy and The Channel, compatibility with campaigns and multiplayer. 

At the end of the day it is optional, if you dont like it you dont have to upgrade.

But you ( ED ) HAS stopped them.  It looks like Ugra is making the single best map for WWII, a map that would unite an entire community, but a vital part of the map is off limits ( and forced to be low detail) because Eagle Dynamics has planted their flag in the tiny area that has the famous white cliffs of Dover and Dunkirk.

In my opinion, the only way to make this right is if ED relinquishes their sole control on that area and permits Ugra to model the Channel Map area in high detail.

[Silver_Dragon]

ED, the N2 headline had me excited for finally, a consolidated map with approriate period correct airfields and target infrastructure.
Instead, the WW2 map strategy remains messy and has even grown bigger.
And as for the top right corner of N2, why? 
 
S!
 
 

Someone has read the FAQ, when UM has plans to expand them as Syria map?

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

[BIGNEWY]

4 minutes ago, Barrett_g said:

But you ( ED ) HAS stopped them.  It looks like Ugra is making the single best map for WWII, a map that would unite an entire community, but a vital part of the map is off limits ( and forced to be low detail) because Eagle Dynamics has planted their flag in the tiny area that has the famous white cliffs of Dover and Dunkirk.

In my opinion, the only way to make this right is if ED relinquishes their sole control on that area and permits Ugra to model the Channel Map area in high detail.

thank you for your feedback we will of course pass it on, and the teams are reading here.

 

[Silver_Dragon]

But you ( ED ) HAS stopped them.  It looks like Ugra is making the single best map for WWII, a map that would unite an entire community, but a vital part of the map is off limits ( and forced to be low detail) because Eagle Dynamics has planted their flag in the tiny area that has the famous white cliffs of Dover and Dunkirk.
In my opinion, the only way to make this right is if ED relinquishes their sole control on that area and permits Ugra to model the Channel Map area in high detail.

Do you read them?

Am I paying for the same map twice?
b No, this is a new map, not an upgrade to the existing Normandy 1944 map.[/b] Although the Normandy 2.0 map includes the same area covered in the Normandy 1944 map, it is much larger with greater detail, accuracy, texture resolution, and trees.
Because the Normandy 1944 map was created using older map technology and tools, it is not possible to simply expand the size of that existing map. The Normandy 2.0 map has been created with new map technology and tools that has allowed us to greatly increase the map size and amount of detail.

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

[Cowboy10uk]

1 hour ago, Hiob said:

What do you expect? Stop creators from doing campaigns for whatever map they want? Nobody is forcing you to play every campaign. If you don't own the map and don't intend to buy it, you can't play a campaign that is specifically created for that map. That's completely normal for modern theaters, why should it be any different for WWII.

Simple, modern theatres don’t have 3 maps that cover the same area, to be honest if it was a modern theatre that had multiple maps that covered the same area then I would be arguing for them all to be blended and working together as well.    

 

Having to have multiple maps that work independently but cover the same location just does not make any sense whatsoever. 
 

if anything it highlights some serious flaws in the current map system and in the tech used by DCS as a whole.  I do understand the difficulty with the fact that different 3rd partys have made a contract to cover a set area for DCS, and while they all want to improve our sim, at the end of the day, they are competing against each other, so want to get the most customers.    
 

This is the first time we have had a situation that I know of where one company’s product covers the same area as another 3rd parties product and, well to be fair I don’t know what the solution is, although that’s EDs problem not ours.  
 

But as simmers it’s only natural that we would expect the entire of the south cost to be covered in DCS world and the maps to naturally combine together as that is what we are used to in other sims.

you buy a base and then you expend with scenery modules for various parts of the world, BUT the main thing is regardless of who develops it, they ALL merge naturally so we as a simmer don’t notice the changeover. 

 

likewise any missions or campaigns purchased in those sims work regardless so long as you have that scenery area installed.

so in this case I would expect that if you have Normandy 2.0 and the Channel map, then the channel map would naturally override the low res areas of Normandy 2.0., but both maps would be merged and working together to create one large high res area, similar to other sims that are available,  And that all campaigns would work across the board.