Is it time to give up on DCS ww2?

[Licenceless]

I've played DCS since P47 was introduced. Came from Il2 and WT and instantly enjoyed the flight model. Now I own all WW2 modules. i used to play for long stretches of time without getting burned out but now im done, and not as in burned out, just done with DCS. It's the same old stuff, same people on the same server fighting at grass level on the same spot on the map even though it got bigger. it's so stale that i've flown with 4 squadrons already, the first 3 used to fly il2 when i joined and where in transition to DCS, everytime we lost people because it was too expensive for some, some didn't have a good enough system to run it. Then it just gotten stale and boring and people slowly stopped showing up. My current squadron is switching back to il2 to get some people back and it's a squadron with 25 years of history and had 200 plus players at one point. When we started playing DCS we used to have 20 plus pilots at the time and server admin's squadron would always fly their 109s to england to bust our balls, the good old days of Storm of War. What frustrates me the most is ED's inactivity. I know there are like 10 or less guys working on ww2 but still, you either do something well or you don't do it at all. How about instead of PTO they finished developing WTO, added a couple period accurate birds. I16 has been in for a while and now LA7 is coming but they havent started working on ETO (not that i want them to focus on that), no, they gotta do PTO because "Nick loves the hellcat". How about they fixed AA ai so it's not copy pasted from modern SAMs and wouldn't see you through clouds anymore. I know that they can't do much and they need 3rd party to make stuff but at this point is it worth it? Just move those 2 dudes working on ww2 to modern and forget ww2 existed. How quickly will people get bored of F4U only fighting against AI zero? You will be able to do the same thing on a badget and fight against 109 in a LA7 on Caucasus map. Give it 3 more years and a half baked hellcat will come and people will gobble it up. ED will waste time making a couple of campaigns for these new shiny toys which people will play for a week and forget about. Then players will go back to Normandy and it's gonna be the same old stuff. And after all that what are we going to have? One very encomplete theatre which people played so much they can't stand it anymore + One very barebones theatre with 2 birds on one side.
Yes it has gotten better throughout the years but nothing major. The only ww2 specific thing they added was fuses on bombs. They fixed a couple of issues on anton, changed some gun sounds and started adding suspension. In 4 years they managed to make the Mossie, thats it. You can argue spotting was also ww2 centered since it's much more important in ww2 then modern and after all this time it's still borked, still too easy to spot, still white dots on clouds. Just thinking about ww2 DCS makes me wanna vomit and the fact that ED doesn't care about it make me wanna cry because i same as most of us have invested a gigantic ammount of money (compared to an avergage gamer boi) into something that ED barelly payes attention to.

New update comes out: Sees biblical ammounts of fixes and new features for every modern jet, scrolls down, ::insert Ken Jeong looking at a tiny pice of paper meme:: ww2 - "adjusted gunsight brightness on the spit" or "adjusted weather in campaign"

Ima check on DCS ww2 in 5 years, maybe

[Silver_Dragon]

Remember I-16, La-7 and future Po-2 has build by 3rd parties (octopus-g) as Incoming F4U Corsair (Magnitude 3). The old P-51D/Fw190D-9/Mosquito FB.IV, the Incoming F6F and WW2 Assets Pack has Main ED WW2 modules, and Bf-109K-4/Fw-190A-8/Spitfire MkIX/P-39D & no builded yet Me262 coming by old RRG Studios WW2 KickStarted project, rescue by ED.... By now, no other 3rd parties has move on WW2 era, and actualy ED and M3 move on PTO. ED expected return to WTO to build BoB modules, M3 continue centred on PTO, and Octopus-G on ETO.

Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

[motoadve]

I re installed IL2 today, have the same feeling as you about DCS WWII, simply as  the wrong map for the airplane setup.

A Germany map will solve the problem, also agree with you about PTO, makes no sense at all , instead of a Hellcat and Corsair , P38 or and an earlier 109 would have made a lot more sense to move in the right direction.

Unfortunately I hate the Il2 arcade damage model, where you get killed with the very first bullet even when flying bombers.

Some things I appreciate in IL2, VR cockpit limits, going thru clouds, is more realistic (rain and darkness)oil on windshield,  turbulence, and wind up higher, not every flight is smooth as glass, pilot modelling is much better.

DCS makes fantastic airplanes, its a shame about the rest, and definitely not attracting people, seems like they don't care at all.

[Licenceless]

@motoadve I agree, il2 has a lot of problems too but at least it's diverse and complete enough where if you play on TAW with you squadron it feels very immersive and reallistic enough that you forget about the issues.

[motoadve]

Exactly , this is why I re installed it, just for TAW with my squad.

[Licenceless]

@motoadve whats your squadron? we're EAF51 im Polansky, we are on soviet side since german side is always full

[motoadve]

SCG Simulated Combat Group, most of the time German side.

[Kang]

I think DCS:WW2 suffers from the same general problems that DCS as a whole is afflicted by, but a few of them might just have more of an effect here.

First and foremost the patented DCS scatterbrain. There seems to be literally no plan behind what is being done and, quite frankly, at this point is would be more confusing and surprising if steps were to be taken towards a useful and compatible set of planes. In the modern-era modules some of this is a little easier to explain away because you can adjust a lot through the missions, but even with the asset pack the WW2 missions are somewhat more limited.

A second issue is that people at least have the feeling that there are very few and little updates happening and quite frankly, this gets exacerbated quite a lot by the prior problem: if there was a somewhat tightly controlled 'scenario plane set' focused on a specific era and theater, updates to any of them would at least feel like development for the whole system, whereas with the way things are, there might be an update to one module and a lot of people within the DCS:WW2 community will shrug and move on because that module hardly features in their missions.

A third problem is that some of the longer-standing major issues with DCS, like some AI problems, that can to an extend be circumnavigated or hidden with the modern-day BVR concepts, are terribly obvious and disastrous to the Korean War era and WW2 modules.

In the end I have no cure for it either, we have to live with what there is. But I can sure understand the growing dissatisfaction.

[LucShep]

I echoe similar feelings here, though in my case I simply decided to not invest in the content.

I own pretty much every WW2 sim/game title that has been released in the last 25 years (some of which received amazing mods by the community), some of which I used for years on end.  I got very interested at a certain point but, even after testing the content, it hasn't convinced me.  As much as I like DCS, in the end I simply enjoy better the WW2 content that's out there.  I just prefer to use DCS for Cold-War and Modern era combat jets, and related conflicts.  And that's it.

Granted, WW2 DCS is a different product if compared to the rest, more in-depth in regards to the airplanes intricacies, with a steep(er) learning curve.
And when you get a warbird that "clicks" with you, it really clicks.  I'm convinced it's this which makes people (who bought content for it) persist on it.

But the business model, the steep hardware requirements and performance unoptimization, the lack of matching content for the specific period, the utterly glacial pace on updates and bug-fixes, and a somewhat broken community, it all contributes to make WW2 in DCS incoherent and make less sense, when the competitors out there provide not only a lot more consistency and context to particular WW2 segments, era and theme, they can (quite frankly) also provide a better overall experience (once again, IMHO).

Edited May 29 by LucShep

[Slippa]

I agree sadly, with Lucshep, the OP and Motoadve, only I have invested. I own all the WW2 bits apart from the I-16 and it's pretty gutting.

I'd fly IL2 as it has every aircraft I want here but too much of that looks or feels naff compared to DCS. I'm stuck here pining for aircraft or moaning for fixes. It doesn't make a lot of sense either. Random decisions on maps or modules, all pretty baffling. I'd rather we had just one map if it meant we had the planeset for it and it made sense. Then move on to another map. As said above, there doesn't look to be any coherent plan or thread to follow so we feel we're treading water and it gets tiring.

 

 

[SharpeXB]

I appreciate that DCS WWII is different from other sims. The fidelity involves essentially limits it from having a broader scope but I’m ok with that. The price of having full fidelity modules is that there will be less of them. 
A dynamic campaign would certainly breathe some life into the whole game and give you more to do than the “same people on the same server fighting at grass level on the same spot on the map” That’s just all multiplayer is and yeah that can get dull. 

[Silver_Dragon]

Remember the rules.. other companies discutions or comparatives..... Has a Not GO.

Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

[=475FG= Dawger]

I have a bit of a different take. WWII online flying games were at their peak when everyone had access to all the same planes for the daily gameplay and "historical" scenarios were special events.

DCS WWII with its limited plane set could benefit from this style of gameplay if three (or more) sides were possible. Of course it would require either labels or locking in some bright color liveries for each side.

Of course, I realize this is impossible. The people who enjoy the challenge of fighting against other folks in the same aircraft, not worried about sneaking around avoiding the fight, instead actively seeking the fight are all dead or retired from gaming.

In such an environment, historical scenarios are an occasional and welcome treat, instead of the inevitable daily grind.

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I have a bit of a different take. WWII online flying games were at their peak when everyone had access to all the same planes for the daily gameplay and "historical" scenarios were special events.

DCS WWII with its limited plane set could benefit from this style of gameplay if three (or more) sides were possible. Of course it would require either labels or locking in some bright color liveries for each side.

Of course, I realize this is impossible. The people who enjoy the challenge of fighting against other folks in the same aircraft, not worried about sneaking around avoiding the fight, instead actively seeking the fight are all dead or retired from gaming.

In such an environment, historical scenarios are an occasional and welcome treat, instead of the inevitable daily grind.

Such arcade style gameplay is still alive I’m sure in that style of game. Not really suited to DCS. There’s nothing to prevent any server from featuring this style of game in DCS but I can’t see the appeal or why this would be popular. I remember an A-10 vs P-51 server back when these were the only aircraft here but that was out of silly desperation

Edited May 12 by SharpeXB

[=475FG= Dawger]

14 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Such arcade style gameplay is still alive I’m sure in that style of game. Not really suited to DCS. There’s nothing to prevent any server from featuring this style of game in DCS but I can’t see the appeal or why this would be popular. I remember an A-10 vs P-51 server back when these were the only aircraft here but that was out of silly desperation

 

Similar aircraft dogfights are absolutely the most fun but they do eliminate blaming the machine.

The problem with DCS WWII and DCS in general is the constant attempt at 24/7 persistent “dynamic” war in an historical framework. It just doesn’t work and becomes extremely stale. 
 

The persistent experience should be one not constrained by “history” allowing for the creation of engaging gameplay. 
 

History re-creation should be a rare treat, not a steady diet. 

[SharpeXB]

20 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Similar aircraft dogfights are absolutely the most fun but they do eliminate blaming the machine.

The problem with DCS WWII and DCS in general is the constant attempt at 24/7 persistent “dynamic” war in an historical framework. It just doesn’t work and becomes extremely stale. 
 

The persistent experience should be one not constrained by “history” allowing for the creation of engaging gameplay. 
 

History re-creation should be a rare treat, not a steady diet. 

If anyone wanted to make a DCS sever like this they could. I don’t personally see the appeal though nor do I think it would necessarily help the popularity of the game. 
The trouble with like vs like scenarios is they almost inevitably need icons or labels. Even friendly-only labels are a crutch and I gather most people don’t like them. 
When you say “flying games were at their peak” with such gameplay I think you’re confusing correlation with causation. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

30 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

If anyone wanted to make a DCS sever like this they could. I don’t personally see the appeal though nor do I think it would necessarily help the popularity of the game. 
The trouble with like vs like scenarios is they almost inevitably need icons or labels. Even friendly-only labels are a crutch and I gather most people don’t like them. 
When you say “flying games were at their peak” with such gameplay I think you’re confusing correlation with causation. 

No, its pretty simple. Back then there was no PvE. Only PvP. Access was restricted by hardware requirements and price of entry. It truly was a different world. There were no user servers.

Everyone was forced into the company servers and the most popular servers were the ones that offered multiple teams and ahistorical plane sets. Simple capture the flag gameplay involving three or four human only teams.

That has devolved to thousands of user servers and horribly fragmented online population.

Now the idea of fighting another human flying the same equipment is something that cannot even be contemplated much less attempted.

As I said in my original post, it is impossible now. Easily bruised egos have too many other choices. By default, the players choose the easiest path instead of the most challenging, get bored fairly quickly and go in search of other things.

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

No, its pretty simple. Back then there was no PvE. Only PvP. Access was restricted by hardware requirements and price of entry. It truly was a different world.

Ok but you’re referring to a different game that’s not relevant to DCS. I’m not sure what your point is. Again such a server would be possible today on DCS but I can’t imagine it would get much attention. People who want that style of gameplay today are playing arcade flying games. The like vs like stuff here was only out of necessity when there were so few aircraft. I’m sure there was a P-51 vs P-51 server many years ago but nobody would be interested in that now. 

[Qcumber]

As has been said before there is some merit to a WW2 flaming cliffs. Combined with an enhanced asset pack to include more variety.

I would also appreciate it if we could get WW2 versions of the Kola and Caucasus maps. 

A Mediterranean theatre map would be a good addition too. About the same size as Afghanistan and about 70% water. A modern version of the same map could stretch to the Balkans and would have the Gulf of Sidra. 

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, Qcumber said:

As has been said before there is some merit to a WW2 flaming cliffs. Combined with an enhanced asset pack to include more variety.

I would also appreciate it if we could get WW2 versions of the Kola and Caucasus maps. 

A Mediterranean theatre map would be a good addition too. About the same size as Afghanistan and about 70% water. A modern version of the same map could stretch to the Balkans and would have the Gulf of Sidra. 

Yeah I think now that they seem to have reversed their thinking about including more FC style aircraft in DCS maybe it’s time to revisit that for WW2 as well. In order to fill up more historical scenarios it becomes necessary to have a greater variety of aircraft and that simply isn’t feasible with all full fidelity modules. And if DCS WW2 wants to include the PTO then I understand doing Japanese aircraft full fidelity isn’t possible due to lack of documentation. There’s no reason FC and FF can’t coexist together, if someone wants to segregate them in MP that can be done with mission design. 

[Kang]

Apart from just allowing for a much quicker implementation of various units it would definitely also give ED some decent data on what exactly people are interested in getting as proper modules, beyond the always biased opinion polls.

[Licenceless]

I agree with people suggesting lower fidelity modules, it would give DCS ww2 a breath of life that is needed to keep people interested while ED hopefully keeps working on making low fidelity a full fidelity module. Sort of the opposite of the industry, in major casual games this is exactly what happens and big devs release half baked stuff to polish it later and a lot of people don't like it but if it's the only choice for DCS ww2 i think it's better then nothing

[Licenceless]

@Kang to be fair, the community voiced what they want a lot, i get that ED relies heavily on 3rd party which according to latest news is a bit of a problem, still, disregarding the f4u which is 3rd party, instead of the hellcat they could have started work on a 109 g of some sort and the team behind mariannas and the one behind PTO assets could have also started to do some QOL work for WTO. FC style aircraft is an option but the question is what and how much you want to secrifice in terms of realism, i think jet FC is easier due to simpler flying characteristics and 0 engine management/limits. 

 

Edited May 16 by Licenceless

[=475FG= Dawger]

The prop FM’s are already dumbed down quite a bit.
 

FC level aircraft that can be produced quickly would be a tremendous boost to DCS WWII.

However, I do think the historical split 24/7 is the game crusher. It builds in an inherent imbalance  

But a bunch of FC Warbirds would be better than the present model in any case. 

[Silver_Dragon]

7 hours ago, Licenceless said:

@Kang to be fair, the community voiced what they want a lot, i get that ED relies heavily on 3rd party which according to latest news is a bit of a problem, still, disregarding the f4u which is 3rd party, instead of the hellcat they could have started work on a 109 g of some sort and the team behind mariannas and the one behind PTO assets could have also started to do some QOL work for WTO. FC style aircraft is an option but the question is what and how much you want to secrifice in terms of realism, i think jet FC is easier due to simpler flying characteristics and 0 engine management/limits. 

• WW2 3rd parties has not only Magnitude 3 with the F4U + your PTO Assets (has claim about a AM6 zero or other IJA/IJN aircraft on the future), has Octopus-G with the I-16, La-7 to release that year and the future Po-2, and other 3rd parties will come with more aircrats WW2 modules.
• F6F + ED PTO assets (to add to WW2 Assets Pack) has a personal project by Nick Grey CEO from The Fighter Collection, and He has talked with the next WW2 modules will be BoB modules (Same situation with The Fighter Collection).
• FC style aircrafts has none new, remember was someone called "Moder Air Combat", never release. ED only has take part of your planned aircrafts (no 3rd Party modules) and add to actual FC-3, the comunity has none to do on them.
• Convert actual WW2 modules on FC, has a complete none sense and make doom the spirit of WW2 on DCS, convert the on a WoA/WoT "game".... please NO.

Edited May 16 by Silver_Dragon