DCS: Normandy 2.0 preview

[NineLine]

6 minutes ago, No1sonuk said:

That shows Dover Castle is missing...

Dover Castle is covered by the Channel Map, in Normandy 2 this area is a lower detailed area. 

Also remember the map is just in preview there may be items on the map that are still WIP as well.

[No1sonuk]

3 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Dover Castle is covered by the Channel Map, in Normandy 2 this area is a lower detailed area. 

Ironic that London is in high detail, but Dover castle is missing...

[NineLine]

Just now, No1sonuk said:

Ironic that London is in high detail, but Dover castle is missing...

Not at all if you look at what I said. The Channel area is a separate map, that area on Normandy 2 is lower details. The Channel Map doesn't cover London, so on the Channel Map London is a lower detailed area. 

[No1sonuk]

3 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Not at all if you look at what I said. The Channel area is a separate map, that area on Normandy 2 is lower details. The Channel Map doesn't cover London, so on the Channel Map London is a lower detailed area. 

So why all the other fine details in the area, but omit one of the most significant buildings on the South coast?

[NineLine]

40 minutes ago, No1sonuk said:

So why all the other fine details in the area, but omit one of the most significant buildings on the South coast?

They are not, it's a low-detail area. It is not as detailed as other areas. 

[Silver_Dragon]

On 4/4/2023 at 6:16 PM, Gunfreak said:

I know you can't actually say anything. But have there been internal talk amongst ED about expanding channel into Belgium, and Holland. It would give us the ability to do.

 

1. Market Garden

2.  Bodenplatte 

Both operations where the planes in DCS were actually used.

On top of that it would be excellent for allied raids from 1941 to 44 both early British ramrods with Bostons and spitfires but also later ones with B17s and P47s

 

All "map extensions" require very big expansions.

Market Garden

Bodenplatte has very outside...

As reference (Sorry, on Spanish):
- Yellow: Actual Channel Map
- Blue: Ardennes / Market Garden with allied airfields.
- Red: Bodenplatte with axis airfields and all attaked allied airfields.
- Brown: Dreamed map with all combined operations / Allied bombing campaign. near x6-8 Actual Channel map.
Not include Normandy / Normandy 2.0 maps

Edited April 6, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[greco.bernardi]

On 4/4/2023 at 1:23 PM, Silver_Dragon said:

By ED, "actually DCS Map technology has none capability to merging maps". "Toolkits" to migrate campaing only capable rebuild them from scratch on a new map.

Channel map was builded oriented on a future Bob modules incoming by Nick Grey plans.

 

How Channel Map as it is now, can be oriented for Battle of Britain without London?

Edited April 7, 2023 by greco.bernardi

[NineLine]

3 hours ago, greco.bernardi said:

How Channel Map as it is now, can be oriented for Battle of Britain without London?

 

We dont have the aircraft to support BoB yet, that will be a question to ask when that time comes. 

[Gunfreak]

And given the time it would take to create the 6-15 aircraft needed for BoB, it would be much faster to expand the channel map eastward into the low countries.

[Beirut]

Just watched the long Grim Reapers preview of Normandy 2. What a great looking map! Helicopter heaven.

 

I'm gonna need a new video card...

[Silver_Dragon]

9 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

And given the time it would take to create the 6-15 aircraft needed for BoB, it would be much faster to expand the channel map eastward into the low countries.

Diferent teams, difernet SDKs, we not know the time or plans to the next WW2 map after Marianas WW2, but a Channel map expansion to the north, east and west will be a point.

Meanwhile, I think Normandy 2.0 has very near...

 

[MADLOU1]

You Normandy purists need to stop griping.  Just look at the incredible detail and beauty of what they have so far!  Would you nitpickers be happier if they didn't do the map update at all???

[Gunfreak]

46 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Diferent teams, difernet SDKs, we not know the time or plans to the next WW2 map after Marianas WW2, but a Channel map expansion to the north, east and west will be a point.

Meanwhile, I think Normandy 2.0 has very near...

 

That's not the point it takes 2-3 years to make a plane module and 2-3 to make a map.

So to make Hurricane, Spitfire, Stuka, Me109E, Me110, (plus at least 5 more AI only planes)(the absolute minimum for BOB), that's 10 years of work vs 1 map which is 2-3 years of work.
Now if ED had the resources to either make 5 teams(or hire 3rd party developer)  to make 5 WW2 planes at the same time, so in 2-3 years we'd have 5 planes ready for Bob, that would be one thing, but I don't think ED has the resources, and it doesn't match the current way they do business. So yes it would be still be better to spend 2-3 years on expanding Channel eastward vs waiting 10 years for some early war planes to trickle in. 

[Sandman24]

I am still trying to understand the situation. Did Ugra decide to leave the Channel area low-detail voluntarily (which I doubt) or did ED force them to do so? If the latter is the case: did the agreement include that they are allowed to model Dover Harbor, but aren't allowed to model Dover Castle? And that they are allowed to model the towns, but not the airfields? What is the point of that?!

Of course I fully understand that ED heavily invested in the Channel map and that they want to see a return on that investment. But can't they simply sell the rights to the area to Ugra? Either for a fixed price, or for a certain fraction of the future revenue? For one, I don't mind if that means that future upgrades of the combined map become more expensive. How can selling two clearly suboptimal products be a better business strategy than selling a single superior product for twice the amount? In this situation the whole is so much better than the sum of the parts. Having a single WWII map would hold far more potential for future development and expansion in all directions – it would be an obvious win for all parties involved.

In short, can't this issue be solved by the two parties talking to each other? I really hope these talks are already happening.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Sandman24

[Gunfreak]

12 minutes ago, Sandman24 said:

I am still trying to understand the situation. Did Ugra decide to leave the Channel area low-detail voluntarily (which I doubt) or did ED force them to do so? If the latter is the case: did the agreement include that they are allowed to model Dover Harbor, but aren't allowed to model Dover Castle? And that they are allowed to model the towns, but not the airfields? What is the point of that?!

Of course I fully understand that ED heavily invested in the Channel map and that they want to see a return on that investment. But can't they simply sell the rights to the area to Ugra? Either for a fixed price, or for a certain fraction of the future revenue? For one, I don't mind if that means that future upgrades of the combined map become more expensive. How can selling two clearly suboptimal products be a better business strategy than selling a single superior product for twice the amount? In this situation the whole is so much better than the sum of the parts. Having a single WWII map would hold far more potential for future development and expansion in all directions – it would be an obvious win for all parties involved.

In short, can't this issue be solved by the two parties talking to each other? I really hope these talks are already happening.

 

Watching the grim reapers video. I was surprised by the level of detail in the "low detail" area  except for missing dover Castle and airfields it looks like the rest of the map.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Probably ED is looking for some technology allowing them either to join the maps together, or maybe not join them but load them without pause even though they're separated modules, that besides, or on top of, their World map which we know they're working on. That to say something, I don't know and probably there might be even more technical solutions we aren't even aware of.

Of course, I don't think that's something we would see very soon for sure, but if they're actively seeking something on the like, it'd be definitely pointless to model a certain area on any given map twice!! I don't know, we don't know, but given what we do know that's a distinctive possibility, IMO.

 

But no, let's find wild and of course horrible solutions because ED have demonstrated along the years how they don't take care of the end users, haven't them?

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

That's not the point it takes 2-3 years to make a plane module and 2-3 to make a map.

So to make Hurricane, Spitfire, Stuka, Me109E, Me110, (plus at least 5 more AI only planes)(the absolute minimum for BOB), that's 10 years of work vs 1 map which is 2-3 years of work.
Now if ED had the resources to either make 5 teams(or hire 3rd party developer)  to make 5 WW2 planes at the same time, so in 2-3 years we'd have 5 planes ready for Bob, that would be one thing, but I don't think ED has the resources, and it doesn't match the current way they do business. So yes it would be still be better to spend 2-3 years on expanding Channel eastward vs waiting 10 years for some early war planes to trickle in. 

ED release a new aircraft on 1-2 years on WW2, but remember Covid on 2020-21 and actual 2022-23 Ukraine War has affect to ED teams and surely 3rd parties. ED has clear actually your path...
- First Build Marianas WW2 and F6F Hellcat module, piloted and restored by Nick Grey and surelly expand WW2 to the PTO with M3 F4U and your Pacific pack to others move and expand that theater. Bob has a personal claim by Nick and other aircrafts on the fighter collection. Dont expected ED hire 3rd parties to make your work (claimed by Chizh), ED has your plans and actualy, we dont know if others 3rd Parties outside M3, Ugra Media and Octopus-G has plans to WW2.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[Gunfreak]

6 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

ED release a new aircraft on 1-2 years on WW2, but remember Covid on 2020-21 and actual 2022-23 Ukraine War has affect to ED teams and surely 3rd parties. ED has clear actually your path...
- First Build Marianas WW2 and F6F Hellcat module, piloted and restored by Nick Grey and surelly expand WW2 to the PTO with M3 F4U and your Pacific pack to others move and expand that theater. Bob has a personal claim by Nick and other aircrafts on the fighter collection. Dont expected ED hire 3rd parties to make your work (claimed by Chizh), ED has your plans and actualy, we dont know if others 3rd Parties outside M3, Ugra Media and Octopus-G has plans to WW2.

 

None of that means anything. 

 

Late ww2 has existed in dcs for 7 years. And that's still missing lots of stuff. Now we are getting Pacific which Mag 3 and ED seems to put a lot of effort into. So unless ED completely changes how they've done stuff for 10 years. It will be at least another 10 years before we have anything looking like Bob.

Pacific and late war Europe is already more than enough for ED and 3rd party developers to work on. Adding a 3rd period to cover in DCS ww2 would just lead to 3 very half or quarter finished periods. 

So again it's better to expand channel eastward to improve the late war Europe part of dcs ww2.

 

We always see ED have to make choices about what to improve,  what to add and what to ignore. Spreading ED even thinner is not a good idea.

[NineLine]

Enough now guys, you are getting way off topic.

The Channel is a separate map done by a separate development team (us) before it was known that Ugra was going to do Normandy 2. 

It makes no sense right now until there is some tech to join maps to overlap major areas so Ugra left the Channel Map area off Normandy 2. 

If you own The Channel Map you get a discount on Normandy 2.

Please stick with the discussions of Normandy 2 and Normandy 2 only it has been explained enough why the Channel Map area is not included.

Thanks.

[Rudel_chw]

Seems the release is near:

 

 

 

[Gunfreak]

7 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

Seems the release is near:

 

 

 

That's probably the best video showing the huge improvements.

In one scene. When you went from Normandy 1944 to Normandy 2. There was suddenly a town where there wasn't one previously and a dirt airfield turned into a concrete airfields with hangars.

[Trooper117]

Awesome stuff... the differences between Normandy 44 and Normandy 2 are huge... it's chalk and cheese to be sure!

very much looking forward to the release. 

[skywalker22]

On 2/26/2023 at 6:20 PM, DD_Fenrir said:

@MAESTR0

Firstly, let me say thankyou for all your teams efforts - the general layouts of the airfields look pretty good and I can see the effort that has been invested to make the airfields less sterile.

After a more detailed review, I do, however, have some concerns.

1. Many of your RAF fields have too many control towers.

One was the norm. In some cases there were two where the airfield topography required it because of blindspots, or where one originally built was not up to the capacity required as the airfield expanded (which they often did as the war progressed). However, they were the exception, not the rule.

From the screenshots provided, Tangmere, Ford and West Malling immediately jump out as being examples of where we have a surplus number of unprototypically placed Control Towers.

If you would like information on where to accurately place control towers please PM me or @Fred901 as between us we have the data to help you get it right.

 

2. There should be no foliage (shrubs, bushes trees) within the perimeter track. This is an instruction laid down in Air Ministry Standards long before the war. It's just not a feature of Allied wartime airfields as they present a hazard to aircraft. Please omit them from Gravesend, Ford, Farnborough and Funtington.

 

3.  There should be no concrete block paving on the runways/taxiways.  Whilst large aircraft pans were certainly paved with large concrete blocks, taxiways and runways were not. Please adjust the runway/taxiway textures to reflect this at Tangmere and Farnborough.

 

4.  There is a lack of dispersal points and blast pens on some of the large airfields.  Tangmere and Ford had provision by 1944 to support 9-12 squadrons each of 18-20 aircraft - this needed a LOT of real estate dedicated towards parking spots for aircraft. These could be as simple as a small poured concrete circle, many of which were in evidence at these two airfields but are missing in your reproductions. So too the blast pens, these dating from pre-1940 and a very distinctive feature on many RAF airfields of the time. Please conside adding some of these in.

 

All the above can be summarised in these annotated drawings of Ford and Tangmere respectively:

The layout is 75% correct regards runways and taxiways but the areas where the hangars are is wrong by some margin. Also note the foliage and compared to period plans there's a dearth of places to park aircraft.

 

Tangmere best displays the over-abundance of Control Towers and again, the lack of aircarft parking spots.

 

5. Incorrect hangar types. Please see my original post on this matter here. I do see a change has been made to the large hangar type being used throughout the RAF airfields from this:

to this:

 

But even this generic hangar looks little like any example on any British airfield. In addition, it's uselessly too tall! The only reason you'd have a hangar that high is because you were expecting to put a tricycle undercarriaged bomber sized aircraft with a very tall single tail in it, yet that framed glass full width transom window prevents any aircraft from utilising the height within - it doesn't make much sense.

Please, please, PLEASE consider making an accurate 3D model of a single bay Belfast Truss instead; a 2 bay version is shown below:

This would be FAR more prototypical for all the airfields shown and I wouldn't grumble if it appeared on other airfields in lieu of their actual hangar because at least it was of a period prototypical pattern.

 

 

I'm curious if this has been considered yet? 

He has made some good and relevant points, and would be awesome if the devs would take it into account.

Edited April 10, 2023 by skywalker22

[ThorBrasil]

 

[Veteran66]

we need german Bombers (He111 or Ju88) for this Targets