DCS: Normandy 2.0 preview

[Barrett_g]

2 hours ago, DD_fruitbat said:

I'm 100% sure Dover airfield isn't on the map, as its never existed anywhere other than in your post.

Its possible you mean Hawkinge, which is actually just outside of Folkestone, not Dover, located in the village of....... Hawkinge. 

My bad.  I was thinking of the little airfield in Dunkirk.

It was late and I knew it started with a “D.”

[Ombit]

I’m concerned that Heathrow is included but not Northolt. Heathrow was only a diversion airfield for Northolt and Northolt was the only Battle of Britain airfield not to be taken out of action at any time during the BoB. I’m amazed that this massively important airfield hasn’t been included.

[DD_fruitbat]

1 hour ago, Barrett_g said:

My bad.  I was thinking of the little airfield in Dunkirk.

It was late and I knew it started with a “D.”

Are you sure you don't mean Dettling?

RAF Dunkirk was a Radar station.

[DD_Fenrir]

@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.

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by DD_Fenrir

[Cliffhanger31]

The only exception to the “no-foliage” rule would be the ALGs which by their nature were temporary and thus the surrounding terrain was not extensively cleared. St Pierre Du Mont for example has many aircraft dispersals in the surrounding hedgerows.

[slipstream21]

It’s a shame that DCS does not model Orbx and FS in that the base scenery is released with default airports and then we buy add ons such as detailed airports, landmarks etc otherwise it becomes a never ending battle trying to please everyone and the bloody scenery never ends up being released. 
 

[NineLine]

13 hours ago, 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.

 

 

Good notes, thanks!

[slipstream21]

Can’t wait to fly low-level in the Huey. 

[draconus]

40 minutes ago, slipstream21 said:

It’s a shame that DCS does not model Orbx and FS...

Not at all. Different games, different goals and definitely different business.

[Trooper117]

6 hours ago, slipstream21 said:

It’s a shame that DCS does not model Orbx and FS in that the base scenery is released with default airports and then we buy add ons such as detailed airports, landmarks etc 
 

1940's WWII detailed landscape is far different from the modern data that Orbx and FS use for their maps...

[Tree_Beard]

On 2/26/2023 at 1:14 AM, Sandman24 said:

I wouldn't be too frustrated about the L-shaped business. Ugra will probably not confirm this, but the way I see it they are making it as easy as possible for the two maps (N2 and Channel) to be stitched together at some point. Perhaps modders will be able to do this. Or even better, once the N2 map is out, the Channel map will probably not sell too well any more. So I could imagine that ED might eventually give their Channel data to Ugra, so they can very quickly expand the N2 map to cover the entire region.
 

Everyone keeps assuming this is the case, but as ED says below, they are not going to be combining these maps at any point in the near future. Modders don't have access to map making tools, so they obviously aren't going to be able to it either. The map is L-shaped so ED can continue selling their Channel map going forward. That is the only reason, because like you said, why would anyone buy the channel if Ugra did model it in their newer map. Once this new Normandy map comes out, we will basically have not one, not two, but now three separate terrain products, confusingly all focused on the exact same area that isn't relevant to the assets that exist in the game. I'm glad that work is being done on WW2, but I think people's frustrations with the general direction are mostly justified. 

 

[Silver_Dragon]

4 minutes ago, Tree_Beard said:

Everyone keeps assuming this is the case, but as ED says below, they are not going to be combining these maps at any point in the near future. Modders don't have access to map making tools, so they obviously aren't going to be able to it either. The map is L-shaped so ED can continue selling their Channel map going forward. That is the only reason, because like you said, why would anyone buy the channel if Ugra did model it in their newer map. Once this new Normandy map comes out, we will basically have not one, not two, but now three separate terrain products, confusingly all focused on the exact same area that isn't relevant to the assets that exist in the game. I'm glad that work is being done on WW2, but I think people's frustrations with the general direction are mostly justified. 

 

- Ugra Media has your plans and move to build a new Normandy map into your limits and nothing to do with the ED map.
- The Channel map has planned by ED to the future BoB modules.
- The actual "aseets" has on part planned by ED (P-51B, Fw-190D-9) before WW2 KS and (Mosquito, F6F, Normandy WW2) after. Fw-190A-8, Bf-190K-4 and P-37 was planned by el old KS and only missing Me262. Other 3rd paries has our plans (I-16, La7)

[Sandman24]

Well, let's see what happens after N2 comes out. If they don't merge in a year or so, I 100% agree with you that frustration is justified. In my opinion ED would shoot itself in the foot by continuing to separately develop the Channel map and thus internally compete with Ugra. It should be in ED's interest to make the WWII part of DCS as good as possible in order to compete with IL-2. In any case, the argument that it would be 'technically impossible' is of course nonsense: if both parties want it, it can be done and fast.

By the way, in general I believe ED should not burden itself any longer with making scenery. There are plenty of dedicated third party companies who can do that. Let ED focus on actually finishing the game – AI, ATC, dynamic campaign, multithreading, etc.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Sandman24

[Tree_Beard]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

- Ugra Media has your plans and move to build a new Normandy map into your limits and nothing to do with the ED map.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, sorry. My point is that the maps are separate and will remain separate for the foreseeable future.

Quote

- The Channel map has planned by ED to the future BoB modules.

So it'll be what, 5 years before these plans might come to fruition? Probably even more than that? Not even worth discussing today, in my opinion. 

Quote

The actual "aseets" has on part planned by ED (P-51B, Fw-190D-9) before WW2 KS and (Mosquito, F6F, Normandy WW2) after. Fw-190A-8, Bf-190K-4 and P-37 was planned by el old KS and only missing Me262. Other 3rd paries has our plans (I-16, La7)

I don't know the history of this Kickstarter thing or which party planned which module years ago, and frankly who really cares at this point. If there are things that they had to do based on the Kickstarter, or something else, then use that as a base to build the rest of your ww2 simulation around in a coherent manner. 

[Tree_Beard]

31 minutes ago, Sandman24 said:

By the way, in general I believe ED should not burden itself any longer with making scenery. There are plenty of dedicated third party companies who can do that. Let ED focus on actually finishing the game – AI, ATC, dynamic campaign, multithreading, etc.

 

Yes, I agree 100%.

If only ED opened up the map making tech to the modding community too. Unfortunately, I think selling maps at $60 a pop is probably just too lucrative for them to not want control over it. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Tree_Beard

[Gunfreak]

9 minutes ago, Tree_Beard said:

 

So it'll be what, 5 years before these plans might come to fruition? Probably even more than that? Not even worth discussing today, in my opinion. 

 

5 years for mabye 1 plane.

Given the minimum number of planes one needed for even basic BoB experience.  And the speed in which ww2 planes are added. Its like 20 years before we have anything BoB like. And if they planned the channel map to be BoB why make it 1943 period and then spend time making the Mossie.

[Silver_Dragon]

53 minutes ago, Tree_Beard said:

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, sorry. My point is that the maps are separate and will remain separate for the foreseeable future.

Current mapping technology does not allow them to be merged or flown from one to the other, as they are different entities, and ED has no plans for this. The future "whole world" technology will have earth-sized maps, but we don't know how ED or 3rd parties will be able to make detailed sections, and current maps technology cannot be exported to this future map technology.

53 minutes ago, Tree_Beard said:

So it'll be what, 5 years before these plans might come to fruition? Probably even more than that? Not even worth discussing today, in my opinion. 

Making realistic modules is not copy and paste, or exporting aircraft, such aircraft require research and currently ED WW2 aircraft come from The Fighter Collection (ED CEO company Nick Grey), with realistic WW2 aircraft on fly conditions. the same situation of other 3rd party WW2 aircrafts. ED has his plans regarding WW2 aircraft modules and these don't go hand in hand with the maps as they are made by different teams.

53 minutes ago, Tree_Beard said:

I don't know the history of this Kickstarter thing or which party planned which module years ago, and frankly who really cares at this point. If there are things that they had to do based on the Kickstarter, or something else, then use that as a base to build the rest of your ww2 simulation around in a coherent manner. 

ED had no plans to make WW2 in 2012, itself, the P-51D and Fw-190D-9 was made as a technology demonstrator to prove DCS World's reach in making piston aircraft.

The WW2 project was a plan by RRG Studios, who wanted to use the DCS World engine to make a separate product, and kickstarted their own plans with ED planes (P-51D, Fw-190D-9) and the aircrafts themselves planned by RRG Studios (Fw-190A-8, P-47D, Me262), the Normandy map and the WW2 assistance pack.

The project was financed with some predges, but RRG Studios after 1-2 years went bankrupt, and ED rescued the project. Ugra Media began to make Normandy and ED recovered the planes in development and put their own money to finish the Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8 and the P-47D, in addition to recovering part of the WW2 assets pack team, which they have been making AI units.

The Mosquito FB.IV, F6F Hellcat and future Bob modules are Nick Gray projects and the Me262 is still under investigation by ED team, due to lack of data to model it correctly. The same situation occurred with the P-47D, since there was no conclusive data to be able to carry out the flight model of this module and they had to investigate and put money to complete it.

41 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

5 years for mabye 1 plane.

Given the minimum number of planes one needed for even basic BoB experience.  And the speed in which ww2 planes are added. Its like 20 years before we have anything BoB like. And if they planned the channel map to be BoB why make it 1943 period and then spend time making the Mossie.

That is false, Mosquito FB.VI has none exclusive for Channel map, has builded to use them on any WW2 map, and the number of WW2 aircraft produced by ED has been approximately 1-2 year to develop a WW2 module, until reaching 2020 and Covid and let's remember that the war in Ukraine has also affected the development of modules by ED.

WW2 Addons by ED and 3rd parties
2012- P-51D
2014- Bf-109K-4 / Fw-190D-9
2016- Spitfire mk IX
2017- WW2 Assets Pack initial release / Ugra media Normandy
2019- Fw-190A-8 / Octopus-g I-16 Type 24
2020- P-47D-30 / ED The Channel Map
2021- de Havilland Mosquito FB Mk.V

Incoming planned WW2 modules:
ED: Marianas WW2 / F6F Hellcat / Bob Modules / Me262 / More ETO & PTO WW2 assets to WW2 assets pack.
M3: F4U1 Corsair + PTO WW2 Assets
Ugra Media: Normandy 2.0
Octopus-G: La-7

Edited February 27, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[Silver_Dragon]

Normandy 2.0 appears on last A-10C-2 Tank Killer video by Wags

 

[FupDuck]

45 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Normandy 2.0 appears on last A-10C-2 Tank Killer video by Wags

 

I have high hopes that the upcoming beta release on March 1 will include Normandy 2, especially with the recent announcement of the Mosquito campaign being included in that release. Would seem odd to make a campaign for the Channel with the Normandy 2 release seemingly imminent. 

 

All pure speculation and rumour mongering of course! 

[Barrett_g]

2 minutes ago, FupDuck said:

I have high hopes that the upcoming beta release on March 1 will include Normandy 2, especially with the recent announcement of the Mosquito campaign being included in that release. Would seem odd to make a campaign for the Channel with the Normandy 2 release seemingly imminent. 

 

All pure speculation and rumour mongering of course! 

The Mosquito campaign has been in work for years.  It’s been on hold because ED hadn’t released the official skin map for the Mosquito and Reflected didn’t want to release the campaign with sun-par skins.

[FupDuck]

2 minutes ago, Barrett_g said:

The Mosquito campaign has been in work for years.  It’s been on hold because ED hadn’t released the official skin map for the Mosquito and Reflected didn’t want to release the campaign with sun-par skins.

Like I said, all rumour and speculation!

I am still hopeful! 

[slipstream21]

8 hours ago, FupDuck said:

I have high hopes that the upcoming beta release on March 1 will include Normandy 2, especially with the recent announcement of the Mosquito campaign being included in that release. Would seem odd to make a campaign for the Channel with the Normandy 2 release seemingly imminent. 

 

All pure speculation and rumour mongering of course! 

So N2 will be released in Beta version only? I hope not. 

[Gunfreak]

7 minutes ago, slipstream21 said:

So N2 will be released in Beta version only? I hope not. 

All new things are released on the beta first. 

[draconus]

13 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

- The actual "aseets" has on part planned by ED (P-51B, Fw-190D-9) before WW2 KS and (Mosquito, F6F, Normandy WW2) after. Fw-190A-8, Bf-190K-4 and P-37 was planned by el old KS and only missing Me262. Other 3rd paries has our plans (I-16, La7)

Have you just revealed 3 new modules planned by ED?! Bf-190K-4 seems to be fictional.

[slipstream21]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

All new things are released on the beta first. 

Ok. Thanks. So, for me to run an open beta version I follow this instruction?

You have to download File : DCS_World_OpenBeta_web.exe
put this file to any folder, run it once and follow the installation process.