Jump to content

DCS: Normandy 2.0 preview


MAESTR0

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, MAESTR0 said:

Didn't think you'd notice so quickly. 😀 But you didn't see the second hand on the clock. 😉

 

 

The clocks actually showing mission time is just unbelievably awesome!!!

I hope you consider removing the bomb trailers.  Or at the very least… remove the bombs from the bomb trailers.

Like I said earlier it’s really unrealistic.  Since my last post I thought of a couple more reasons why they should not be there:

From what I can see by zooming in on my phone…. They look like RAF bombs.  What happens if the mission builder wants to build a scenario where this base is an American base?  Or if, while in a multiplayer server the Germans take over the base?  It’s really weird to have nation specific assets hard-coded to that base… it’s the same reason you don’t hard-code Spitfires as scenery around bases.

Also:  Imagine landing on the runway and requesting a rearm and being denied because the base is out of bombs to load you with…. Yet you count 5 different trailers with 2 each bombs you need!!!

 

Its just an immersion breaker in multiple different ways.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MAESTR0 said:

Didn't think you'd notice so quickly. 😀 But you didn't see the second hand on the clock. 😉
@Fred901@Magic Zach  Thanks for the help. We are trying to make Normandy 2 one of the best DCS maps. We will be grateful for any information.

2.png

3.jpg

4.jpg

Hello Maestro!  These are excellent shots, the details on this upcoming map are amazing!

You mentioned in the FAQ that more airfields were to come after release, however.  Have you considered the following airfields?  There's an additional 14 airfields that I didn't see get mentioned yet, but were firmly within the Normandy 2 high detail area, or were very big, concrete, and noticeable from the air, or had a lot of useage.
Dinard-Pleurtuit
Brogile
Bernay Saint-Martin
Beaumont-le-Roger
Paluel/Saint-Valery-en-Caux
Poix (Croixrault)
Saint-Andre-de-l'Eure
Dreux-Vernouillet
Paris-Orly (Orly)
Toussus-le-Noble and Paris-Buc
Melun-Villaroche
Mondidier
Rosieres
Roye-Amy/Beuvraignes

For more information, I made this post here:

 


Edited by Magic Zach
  • Like 1

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MAESTR0 said:

Didn't think you'd notice so quickly. 😀 But you didn't see the second hand on the clock. 😉
@Fred901@Magic Zach  Thanks for the help. We are trying to make Normandy 2 one of the best DCS maps. We will be grateful for any information.

 

 

@MAESTR0 Good to see you are active on this thread. Can I ask if the kneeboard folder will work on this map? Also, can I ask what happened to the promised October update of Syria to fix that issue there and why you are no longer answering any of my messages?  Thanks.

  • Thanks 2

Intel i7 12700K · MSI Gaming X Trio RTX 4090 · ASUS ROG STRIX Z690-A Wi-Fi · MSI 32" MPG321UR QD · Samsung 970 500Gb M.2 NVMe · 2 x Samsung 850 Evo 1Tb · 2Tb HDD · 32Gb Corsair Vengance 3000MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · Tobii Eye Tracker 5 · Thrustmaster F/A-18 Hornet Grip · Virpil MongoosT-50CM3 Base · Virpil Throttle MT-50 CM3 · Virpil Alpha Prime Grip · Virpil Control Panel 2 · Thrustmaster F-16 MFDs · HTC Vive Pro 2 · Total Controls Multifunction Button Box

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not impressed with the generic hangar types present on the RAF fields; they look very little like the prototypes and more like someone's idea of a mid 20th century hangar.

There were a specific range of a hangar types in use by the RAF during the war.

Given the airfields proposed for the map you will need the folllowing:

 

1. RFC General Aircraft Service Shed (aka Belfast Hangar) 

http://www.hootonparktrust.co.uk/images/photos/air_pict2.jpg

This is a WW1 era shed that came in 1, 2 and 3 bays. The linked picture shows 3x 2-bay versions.

Duxford, home of The Fighter Collection is famously home to the best existing examples.

Kenley, Ford and Tangmere had these pre-war but many were destroyed in the Battle of Britain. However, at Kenley and Tangmere at least one survived to still be extant during Operation Overlord.

 

2. J-Type Hanger

This is what the J-Type Hanger and Control tower at RAF West Malling looked like post war; both were present during the D-Day period:

west-malling.jpg

The control tower was not white during the conflict, however; it was camouflaged brown and green. This shot shows an Fw 190 that force landed at the airfield in 1943:

history-captured-focke-wulf.jpg

 

3. Blister hangars

There were 3 sizes

  1. Blister Hangar 45ft wide x 45ft long
  2. Over Blister Hangar 65ft wide x 45ft long
  3. Extra Over Blister Hangar 69ft wide x 45ft long

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205212731

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205210839

Examples of these are seen at Ford:

iwm-ch-12889.jpg

 

and in aerial photos of Kenley:

raf_cpe_uk_2116_v_5102-524x652.jpg

 

& West Malling as shown in @Fred901 s excellent annotated drawings in this thread:

 

Others also show up at many of the Advanced Landing Grounds in the UK. 

 


Edited by DD_Fenrir
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These types:

West Malling2.jpg

Ford4.jpg

These don't belong on any RAF airfield; they are too elaborate and continental or even American in their design. The positions these are shown in would have been the much more spartan blister hanger types.

 

This hangar:

Ford3.jpg

Is supposed to be representative of the Belfast type hangar? It's got far too much glazing, and is too ostentatious. Again too continental - feels like a French or German pre-war type. Also, camouflage?!

This what it should look like:

0de932cc-6629-4f28-bd0b-de0c7666335b.jpg

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also:

3_3.jpg

 

If this reflects a train in Southern England those coaches need to be olive or malachite green - in the maps primary focus area the Southern Railway was the predominant railway company; those look like they are based on London Midland & Scottish Railway types, whose area of responsibility was, as their name suggests, much further North.


Edited by DD_Fenrir
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RAF Ford:

Runway orientations and taxiways almost correct - the hangar area and aircraft pans are in completely the wrong locations and do not attach directly to either runway. Also that group of buildings just off the north-eastern side of the NE-SW runway - just NO. They'd present a significant hazard to aircraft.

Ford1.jpg.dde4662d14c61b7cd7b70f2b5bf3af44.jpg

Ford Airfield 1947 Annotated.jpg

Please refer to this thread for further information:

 


Edited by DD_Fenrir
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,
i've got on bit of criticism, which is a overabundance of "perfect" grass areas. This has two problems: Firstly it can look unrealsitic and make the map appear more like a model train set than a real landscape, secondly it makes it difficult for mission designers to place assets convincingly.
Normandy 1.0 had a similar issue not with abundance of grass, but with abundance of farmland, where it was near impossible to build -f.e.- a radar site complex which looked "grounded", because everything would be placed on pristinely plowed fields (In this regard the channel map is a little bit better, because it has grassy areas with little food paths and brown "worn-out" areas, but still not enough imho).

To remedy the problem, please consider to make industrial sites (picture below) look less green and more roughed up from vehicles (random paths and dirt patches) and maybe also make the remaining grass in these areas look less healthy (more brownish tones).
Also consider adding some random brown spots and "roughed up" parts to the farmland areas and maybe even consider some fields laying completely idle (fallow land) to give good opportunities for setting up military sites.

On 10/21/2022 at 8:16 PM, MAESTR0 said:

2_1.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gunterlund said:

two questions

1. with all the new details in the map, will the AI have trouble navigating ground routes. Lots of thing so collide into.

2. Will there be a preinvasion version of the map without all the airfields the allies built after the landing

 

Obviously I’m not affiliated with Ugra Media OR Eagle Dynamics… but I happen to know the answers to your two questions.

 

1). This is just a map made by Ugra Media.  Ground Unit AI is Eagle Dynamic’s problem and they are working on it.

 

2) This is a cut and paste from Normandy 2.0 FAQ:

Will there be winter textures?

We plan for the Normandy 2.0 to only include the summer season as it is being created around operations in Normandy in the summer of 1944 (Opération Neptune).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These WIP shots are much appreciated. The detail is very impressive. Also nice to see you engage on the forums and take constructive criticism to make it the best map possible.

Would it be possible over time to see some shots from a higher altitude as well? That is where we spend most of our time, and some maps look great from 2000 feet, but are far less convincing at altitude, especially when not using satelite textures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Night Owl said:

Beautiful screenshots! Looking really great!

 

I have just one point, Creil airfield the way it is designed in your map does not really look like on images from 1944, instead, it looks like maybe after the reconstructions that were finished in 1958.

Creil.jpg

+1.
@MAESTR0Not to say that the work done on Normandy 2 doesn't look great (because dang it does look great), but a lot of these historical layout issues might have been caught at an earlier stage in development if we were shown progress or given the news on Normandy 2 a lot earlier.  To make such drastic changes or additions to so many airfields now when they seem almost complete in their incorrect stage, it hurts.

  • Like 6

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Magic Zach said:

+1.
@MAESTR0Not to say that the work done on Normandy 2 doesn't look great (because dang it does look great), but a lot of these historical layout issues might have been caught at an earlier stage in development if we were shown progress or given the news on Normandy 2 a lot earlier.  To make such drastic changes or additions to so many airfields now when they seem almost complete in their incorrect stage, it hurts.

Maybe they could be bound to the mission date? 1945+ will get you these airfields with new layout, older dates will switch to the 1944 layout

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nirvi said:

Maybe they could be bound to the mission date? 1945+ will get you these airfields with new layout, older dates will switch to the 1944 layout

See... this is why I honestly cannot get behind the idea of making a map based on a particular OPERATION (not even date or year).   For us mission creators, a map should be as much of a "white canvas" as possible:  a location with certain characteristics, that can me made into almost anything via the ME and the one creating the mission.  

But to say a map will be:

- Of a particular area (which is obvious and expected)
- On a particular year (which is less obvious but somewhat understandable, something needs to be "fixed" and non-modifiable)
- On a particular month and SEASON (which now limits the ability to tell "different" stories: snow, gives a completely different feel to a map)
- Made for a particular operation (in this case Neptune)

Now you have a map is no longer versatile.  

It's like saying you are making a SEAD F-16 that can only have a fixed layout of ordinance, because that is what they used during the operation X over country Y.

This limits the ability of mission makers to make versatile, interesting, dynamic missions. 

Even if this is a WWII centered map which allows for nothing other than THAT scenario, you cannot even do a "beginning of the war" mission or campaign.  It is too limiting.

That's my take on everything we are reading, even if the images look nice. 

  • Like 6

I'm Dragon in the Multiplayer servers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update, it all looks so good.

One thing that still stands out to me though, is the color values of the trees and grass. I feel like it all needs maybe a little more blue and really only about 70% saturation.


Edited by Plokkum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, RafaPolit said:

See... this is why I honestly cannot get behind the idea of making a map based on a particular OPERATION (not even date or year).   For us mission creators, a map should be as much of a "white canvas" as possible:  a location with certain characteristics, that can me made into almost anything via the ME and the one creating the mission.  

But to say a map will be:

- Of a particular area (which is obvious and expected)
- On a particular year (which is less obvious but somewhat understandable, something needs to be "fixed" and non-modifiable)
- On a particular month and SEASON (which now limits the ability to tell "different" stories: snow, gives a completely different feel to a map)
- Made for a particular operation (in this case Neptune)

Now you have a map is no longer versatile.  

It's like saying you are making a SEAD F-16 that can only have a fixed layout of ordinance, because that is what they used during the operation X over country Y.

This limits the ability of mission makers to make versatile, interesting, dynamic missions. 

Even if this is a WWII centered map which allows for nothing other than THAT scenario, you cannot even do a "beginning of the war" mission or campaign.  It is too limiting.

That's my take on everything we are reading, even if the images look nice. 

Sorry Rafa, I disagree entirely and I think if you re-read your own post you might see the contradictions yourself. ALL maps are "no longer versatile"

Inherently a map needs to be geographically correct, or it's fantasy right? So we're agreed it needs to be of a particular area as you say.

But that area has changed through time, so you need to decide WHEN that map represents in order to get the geography, topology, terrain features correct, or we're back to fantasy land again. Would you accept a map of Europe using a heightmap from Pangaea? I doubt it. Once you've got the where, and the when, there isn't really anything else to discuss. Either the details present are right, or they are not.

That's not to say that a map has to be valid for only the few minutes that match the map being drawn in history but I think (hope?) you'd get my point.

I'm absolutely with you that DCS maps aren't very flexible (and I argued that point right back when Normandy 1 was being developed that with the ALG's already on it, there was about 5 days that the map actually made any sense whatsoever given the dates and the theatre action), and I can completely agree with you that it would be fantastic if we could have a single map for a particular area, and depending on the season, and the date, the topology and features reflect that. So the Normandy/channel map might have a series of times represented, maybe a 1940 map (to cover the Battle of Britian, a 1944 (to cover Normandy campaign), a 1960 map (to cover the early cold war) a, 1990's map etc. More granular time slices would be preferable but I doubt the technology or the desire exists to do even that basic optionality, but that's what we as consumers would want. ED would obviously prefer to charge us 4 times for that example.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be better going forward for ED is to make every asset in a map, be it texture, tree, or building model contain a metadata field of what dates it should appear (i.e. from= 25/06/1944, till=29/09/1944) and tie that to the mission date as selected by the user in the ME.

You wouldn't even need to supply that data for every asset; if left blank it could be programmed for the system to understand that this means the asset will always appear, no matter what date is set; thus you'd only have to concern yourself with applying the correct data to those assets that should change.

That way depending on date a user could see some field textures and surrounding trees... or an Allied ALG. 

Or is that too simple...?

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'd like to see is the AGLs excluded and only the permanent airfields that were there in say 1942 includes.  Make the locations of the ALGs suitable for landing and include templates of those ALGs with tents, sprung shelter and vehs as needed for the correct historical layout.  These would operate more like a FARP does now and you would need a control van for ATC, a tanker for refueling, an ammo truck to rearm, a repair truck to conduct repairs. You could even enable them in combined arms so someone could drive the tanker up to your a/c to refuel it. In fact you could do that with all airfields on the map.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preview shots and videos looks really good so far, and after "some" changes with airfields etc it will be one of the best maps so far for sure. However one thing still pokes my eye and makes scenery looks bit cartoonish, is the color of the trees. I know this topic is discussed many times already with other maps, and problem may not be the actual color of the trees but the lighting and shadows on them. But in the end they do look too bright to my eye, that is especially clear after flying fs2020 wich does have more natural looking color of the trees/woods in france.

CPU: Intel Core i7-2600k @3.40GHz | Motherboard: Asus P8P67-M | Memory: Kingston 8GB DDR3 | OS W10 | GPU: Sapphire R9 290x 8GBDDR5 | Monitor: Samsung Syncmaster 24" | Devices: Oculus Rift, MS FFB 2 joystick, Saitek X 52 Pro throttle, Saitek Pro pedals, Gametrix Jetseat

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Doughguy said:

This level of detail is certainly nice, but dcs is a flight sim.... not a FPS... how often does one get so close to groud objects?

At 400+ kph you not gonna see that much detail.

Don't forget about Combined Arms.

  • Like 1

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doughguy said:

Whilest this looks all  nice, i sincerly hope this will get proper LOD´s... and stay within perspective.

This level of detail is certainly nice, but dcs is a flight sim.... not a FPS... how often does one get so close to groud objects?
At 400+ kph you not gonna see that much detail.

Making missions and scenematics.

i7 13700k @5.2ghz, GTX 3090, 64Gig ram 4800mhz DDR5, M2 drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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