Is it time to give up on DCS ww2?

[LucShep]

22 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Has better quantity vs quality, that is the solution?

FF Warbirds has the blood of WW2, if they start to build WT aircraft, WW2 has turn dead.

Remember ED has working on the General Flight Model to DCS to Modern and WW2 aircrafts?

That is a problem of AI teams, no the WW2 ED or 3rd party teams, the AAA AI behavior has a core feature, no a WW2 exclusive.

More teams has required, ED and 3rd parties has making your plans. You has claimed a new RRG Studios with a closed "planeset".

ED making free assets (many has on progres), and WW2 assests pack with a great discount each 3 months, and more on develop. And we have free assets, as Massun92’s. More teams has required to fill the requests.

Remember dinamic campaign has on progress... no? Entire divisons has none actual or past product with as making similar to them.... and no, the "competitors" never has been make something similar to a "real war", only stubs.

Copy and Paste the "competitors" products? You remember what is the fundations blocks of DCS? has the realism, no a quakewars.

Has your oppinion, here has many people interesting on PTO, and ED and 3rd parties dont go to thash them by "no interest". And ED has no depleted WTO.

  Welp, then we can conclude that WW2 will remain the unfortunately unwanted stepchild.

I don't think quantity vs quality is what I was refering to - I guess that one flew over your head.

Maybe at some point you could do the favor of stepping down from your high horse, and try the peasantly inferior competitor products -with a seriously critical look- and then compare.

If you don't even seem to get what we've been posting about here, then unfortunately I don't think it's worth the time pointing out to problems that you keep ignoring and dismiss. 

It's as I said before in this thread - for me DCS is for jets (be it CW or modern era) and that's it.
For WW2 warbirds, no way for me - for that there's that other one (and another coming).

Edited May 25 by LucShep

[Ala13_ManOWar]

On 5/24/2024 at 12:47 PM, LucShep said:

You see, the F4U Corsair development was announced by M3 in December 2017(!!).
Well over six years later we're still in the phase of the odd and vague WIP screenshots and notes (?!?)....
If that doesn't ring alarm bells, I don't know what does.

Well, that's true. But I haven't paid a cent for a Corsair yet, you know. What alarm should it ring exactly? the only one should be the "it's not coming" (which we know untrue, the pics and vids are there, not as often as we'd like, sure, still there) and... I haven't paid a cent yet, the day I'd bought a module and without my money in my hand I got nothing that'll ring a bell for me, sure it will. Until then I can only wish them the best and an as fast as possible release since I'd like to fly that bird for sure. Anyway, the criticism here looks like it's whining about a module have disappeared and they run with my money, or the like. I haven't seen that yet mate. Why would I feel entitled about something I haven't bought yet? Can't understand that part. Eagerness for having it, Ok, complain about not having it like I already paid something... hmmm... nope...

Edited May 28 by Ala13_ManOWar

[LucShep]

6 minutes ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Well, that's true. But I haven't paid a cent for a Corsair yet, you know. What alarm should it ring exactly? 

The same one for any other piece of content in any entertainment media - and hence why teasers are carefully measured (and usually avoided) in this medium, only exposed when the time is correct.
Any piece of teaser in DCS is thrown too easily IMO, knowing that it will take imeasurable time (huge times) to acomplish, if it ever gets to see the light. 

Edited May 24 by LucShep

[Silver_Dragon]

24 minutes ago, LucShep said:

  Welp, then we can conclude that WW2 will remain the unfortunately unwanted stepchild.

That is your opinion, not me. I see WW2 can reach the same standard of modern modules, no go backward.

24 minutes ago, LucShep said:

I don't think quantity vs quality is what I was refering to - I guess that one flew over your head.

Maybe at some point you could do the favor of stepping down from your high horse, and try the peasantly inferior competition products -with a seriously critical look- and compare.

If you don't even seem to get what we've been posting about here, then unfortunately I don't think it's worth the time pointing out to problems that you keep ignoring and dismiss. 

It's as said before in this thread - DCS is for jets (be it CW or modern era) and that's it.
For WW2 warbirds, no way - for me there's that other one (and another coming).

 

Do you think I dont play the "competence" products?... from 1983 with a fligh simulator called Solo Flight / Combat Pilot on ZX Spectrum, and others on C64 & PCs. Early version of MSFS, Many early combat simulators on vectors as Microprose first simulators (Gunship, F-19, etc), the aclaimed il2 from initial version to 1946, and more in golden age of simulator, F4 & BMS, il2 modern producs from 777, ... ED early products to reach today. I dont need compare but I played all of them.

Edited May 24 by Silver_Dragon

[SharpeXB]

42 minutes ago, LucShep said:

It's as said before in this thread - DCS is for jets (be it CW or modern era) and that's it.
For WW2 warbirds, no way

I don’t quite see the logic in that conclusion. The DCS engine does quite a good job with all these periods and modules. There’s nothing inherently lacking with its ability to do WWII.

[Kang]

Well, this thread sure escalated a bit.

Here's the thing: sometimes I add to these things a bit tongue-in-cheek, because, yes it is a game, but there is no denying that there is a pattern to some complaints and frankly, some of them I feel are very justified. This very thread shows a lot of what is going wrong with DCS:WW2 and it isn't all about which plane we all want or what map isn't there yet, but rather that many constructive criticisms and ideas get deflected away from the product and valid gripes people have simply seem to be considered 'whining'.

Just a few points I would like to add:

• Yes, in retrospect maybe the whole Asset Pack wasn't a great idea, but frankly, it needs more content to it to be viable again. What I find a little frustrating is that there is actually great stuff in that pack and it's even somewhat complete for some scenarios, which is rare enough for DCS. Yet as sales of it have probably dwindled there hasn't been a lot of exciting new stuff in it for a long time.
  Taking a few bits of it and making them available to all was a good move overall as I feel it made more people consider WW2 stuff in DCS, but the advertisement effect, I fear, has been squandered a bit by not making a push of adding more assets to the paid pack within a reasonable timeframe.
• As I hinted at previously, certain wider issues in DCS, as most notably some problems with AI and their flight models, are indeed not WW2 specific and thus something for the AI team to think about, but while a lot of the cut corners can be somewhat accepted in the BVR high tech of 21st century fighters, they are painfully obvious and ruining the experience for early cold war and WW2 scenarios.
  Don't get me wrong, I am aware that the AI need a simplified flight model in order to have any of this still running on any reasonable machine, but unfortunately the AI seem to be insisting on exploiting these simplifications to the absolute maximum in any given situation. From 109Ks to MiG-15s, it is just neither realism (the ultimate God of arguments here it seems) nor in any way fun to chase UFOs that just get any power they want at all times, plus a slight option of defying physics when things get too close.

This all isn't about badmouthing the efforts ED has made and is making in the WW2 area. On the contrary, really. I'm sure I am not the only one who would actually love to get into that more, but get frustrated by the state of some of these things.

[Silver_Dragon]

On 5/25/2024 at 1:04 AM, Kang said:

• Yes, in retrospect maybe the whole Asset Pack wasn't a great idea, but frankly, it needs more content to it to be viable again. What I find a little frustrating is that there is actually great stuff in that pack and it's even somewhat complete for some scenarios, which is rare enough for DCS. Yet as sales of it have probably dwindled there hasn't been a lot of exciting new stuff in it for a long time.
  Taking a few bits of it and making them available to all was a good move overall as I feel it made more people consider WW2 stuff in DCS, but the advertisement effect, I fear, has been squandered a bit by not making a push of adding more assets to the paid pack within a reasonable timeframe.

From your release, WW2 Assets pack has been some new units additions from release, some years ago, and actualy ED has talked the PTO units (on your side), show on "2024 and beyond" will be integrate into them.

On 5/25/2024 at 1:04 AM, Kang said:

• As I hinted at previously, certain wider issues in DCS, as most notably some problems with AI and their flight models, are indeed not WW2 specific and thus something for the AI team to think about, but while a lot of the cut corners can be somewhat accepted in the BVR high tech of 21st century fighters, they are painfully obvious and ruining the experience for early cold war and WW2 scenarios.
  Don't get me wrong, I am aware that the AI need a simplified flight model in order to have any of this still running on any reasonable machine, but unfortunately the AI seem to be insisting on exploiting these simplifications to the absolute maximum in any given situation. From 109Ks to MiG-15s, it is just neither realism (the ultimate God of arguments here it seems) nor in any way fun to chase UFOs that just get any power they want at all times, plus a slight option of defying physics when things get too close.

As I put previously, remember ED has working on General Flight Model AI behavior. An actualy, has not release yet.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

On 5/24/2024 at 7:06 PM, LucShep said:

The same one for any other piece of content in any entertainment media - and hence why teasers are carefully measured (and usually avoided) in this medium, only exposed when the time is correct.
Any piece of teaser in DCS is thrown too easily IMO, knowing that it will take imeasurable time (huge times) to acomplish, if it ever gets to see the light. 

 

Hmmm, yes, Ok, agree teasers should be treated more carefully. I don't recall many teasers about the Corsair yet though, not alike other happy trigger third parties for sure (remember the social media and teasing info is only up to the third party, not to ED or the whole game). Yes, the time should be correct for the teasers trailers and all that stuff, totally agree and I'm no expert in communication to know when the time's right (and anyhow I'm not that eager as others, TBH, but I see it clearly for the noise and hype some people create out of thin air), but I believe aside from a few pics more in the line of "it's coming people, we're still working on it", and that only due to some people saying it's not coming because it's taking long, but still the  Corsair hasn't been teased at all the same as other stuff in DCS, at all, so, why the ringing bell again?

I believe you're mixing here people's personal feelings and the actual hype and teasing and all they create, but that's people, I haven't seen M3 creating that hype or constantly teasing us at all. So, still I can't see any bell to ring here, it's an upcoming module, it's not there yet, I haven't paid a cent yet, the time I pay good money for it and it's not there it'll ring many bells. Not for me yet, whatsoever. As for right now I just await patiently, and eagerly maybe, yes, because it's a historical and important aircraft for a theatre unseen to the day in DCS and I'd like to have those WWII carrier operations in DCS and that's only me, others maybe it's for different reasons, but bells? I can't hear any.

 

Think of it as this, even if the module, and this is totally a worst case scenario I just bring here, a supposition, gets totally carried away and it finally doesn't make it to DCSW, then... what? it'd be a waste of time, effort and money for the third party. As for me personally (and sorry, for everyone here just awaiting the thing) it wouldn't change my life or anything else. The third party would be the hugely disappointed and wasted for their huge effort for nothing. Me, or any other end user here? It's no real loss, just the eagerness for flying the thing, but then again I never had it before, so why the fuss? They investing their effort, time and resources, including economic resources, would be the only ones really hurt. But we users? Why? I had nothing and I'd have nothing the same, and still without spending a cent. So, bells?

[LucShep]

Sorry all for going off-topic.

11 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Hmmm, yes, Ok, agree teasers should be treated more carefully. I don't recall many teasers about the Corsair yet though, not alike other happy trigger third parties for sure (remember the social media and teasing info is only up to the third party, not to ED or the whole game). Yes, the time should be correct for the teasers trailers and all that stuff, totally agree and I'm no expert in communication to know when the time's right (and anyhow I'm not that eager as others, TBH, but I see it clearly for the noise and hype some people create out of thin air), but I believe aside from a few pics more in the line of "it's coming people, we're still working on it", and that only due to some people saying it's not coming because it's taking long, but still the  Corsair hasn't been teased at all the same as other stuff in DCS, at all, so, why the ringing bell again?

I believe you're mixing here people's personal feelings and the actual hype and teasing and all they create, but that's people, I haven't seen M3 creating that hype or constantly teasing us at all. So, still I can't see any bell to ring here, it's an upcoming module, it's not there yet, I haven't paid a cent yet, the time I pay good money for it and it's not there it'll ring many bells. Not for me yet, whatsoever. As for right now I just await patiently, and eagerly maybe, yes, because it's a historical and important aircraft for a theatre unseen to the day in DCS and I'd like to have those WWII carrier operations in DCS and that's only me, others maybe it's for different reasons, but bells? I can't hear any.

 

Think of it as this, even if the module, and this is totally a worst case scenario I just bring here, a supposition, gets totally carried away and it finally doesn't make it to DCSW, then... what? it'd be a waste of time, effort and money for the third party. As for me personally (and sorry, for everyone here just awaiting the thing) it wouldn't change my life or anything else. The third party would be the hugely disappointed and wasted for their huge effort for nothing. Me, or any other end user here? It's no real loss, just the eagerness for flying the thing, but then again I never had it before, so why the fuss? They investing their effort, time and resources, including economic resources, would be the only ones really hurt. But we users? Why? I had nothing and I'd have nothing the same, and still without spending a cent. So, bells?

Fine.
We're just very different then, I guess. 

I don't find it okay (ethically or otherwise) to see a commercial product, based around a single warbird, being initially announced/teased to a whole community of enthusiasts, and then still see it being teased as a "WIP" after nearly SEVEN YEARS.  It's just wrong, sorry. 

"HEY MAN, IT'S ON COMA... ERRR... KINDA.... NOT DEAD THOUGH!! ...OKAAY??"

It may be normal in the modding world (complexities, man power and "real life issues" are so often naively underestimated) but in the commercial arena it's quite different, in my experience.  But hey... it's DCS man!
The "vaporware" term, used for it earlier in this thread, seems fairly apt. "" To me, anyway. 

Edited May 28 by LucShep

[Silver_Dragon]

54 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Sorry all for going off-topic.

I don't find it okay (ethically or otherwise) to see a commercial product, based around a single warbird, being initially announced/teased to a whole community of enthusiasts, and then see it continuously being teased as a "WIP" after nearly SEVEN YEARS.  It's just wrong, sorry. 

It may be normal in the modding world (complexities, man power and "real life issues" are so often naively underestimated) but in the commercial arena it's quite different, in my experience.  The "vaporware" term, used for it earlier in this thread, seems fairly apt. To me, anyway. 

We can repeat the same mantra ever and ever... that is a 3rd party, no a Mod team, and we dont know how many times they have restart the develop, meanwhile return the "vaporware" term has nothing to do here, ED and M3 put news with have something to show, nothing more.

Edited May 28 by Silver_Dragon

[Art-J]

Well, I recall some (if not all) M3 guys do the whole DCS development as a part-time gig, and with no money changing hands for Corsair yet, the project is indeed practically (though not officially) a non-commercial mod rather than an upcoming product, for the time being at least. Should be treated as such ie. It comes when it comes, or in worst scenario it doesn't.

I'm more concerned about M3s ability / manpower to maintain it after/if it gets released and becomes a commercial thing.

Edited May 29 by Art-J

[BIGNEWY]

Some projects take a lot of time, please try to be supportive if you want to see something come to fruition, these teams are often passion projects and the commitment is huge. 

thank you 

[Ala13_ManOWar]

13 hours ago, LucShep said:

Sorry all for going off-topic.

Fine.
We're just very different then, I guess. 

I don't find it okay (ethically or otherwise) to see a commercial product, based around a single warbird, being initially announced/teased to a whole community of enthusiasts, and then still see it being teased as a "WIP" after nearly SEVEN YEARS.  It's just wrong, sorry. 

"HEY MAN, IT'S ON COMA... ERRR... KINDA.... NOT DEAD THOUGH!! ...OKAAY??"

It may be normal in the modding world (complexities, man power and "real life issues" are so often naively underestimated) but in the commercial arena it's quite different, in my experience.  But hey... it's DCS man!
The "vaporware" term, used for it earlier in this thread, seems fairly apt. "" To me, anyway. 

 

Yeah, I get it, but bear in mind that "seven years development" rhetoric is just something people say, it's part of the hype created by some people, not the real thing and certainly not teasing and hype created by the company, not at all. M3 haven't teased us or created that hype mate, it's people who made it happen.

The third party might have said time ago that they were looking forward into creating an F4U module, so long time ago it was even another company named Leatherneck and had many more people in it as already mentioned here. Changes in the company made them take a bit more of time than they could have expected, yep, totally, but those changes weren't even up to them but to other praised (rightly so, don't get me wrong) third party out there. That's a very different story than "M3 company is working on the module since 7 years ago and they didn't deliver yet". They couldn't have been working 7 years on it because M3 didn't even exist 7 years ago in the first place mate...  M3 never really teased us, just communicated their intentions, what they were trying to do, just that, and really started working with their limited resources maybe 3-4 years ago. The hype came later with people imagining things the company never said. Funnily enough the hype didn't even exist 7 years ago, so many people weren't that happy about a Corsair in DCS, they just thought it useless and another orphan module, if you remember those times (I do).

 

And remember about all of that, yes, I'm still eager to see this module in DCS, but that eagerness is just mine, they didn't made me eager, expectations make people eager, sometimes unrealistic expectations and too much talking. So why would I blame them for something I created myself? That's what many users do, blame the company for their unrealistic expectations and hype they created on their own. Just that. It's human psychology apparently, but one I don't share, and one I don't like to be honest.

[MADLOU1]

Sometimes I think its best for gaming sim developers to do like many, if not all, did in the 80s and 90s when we had to buy a physical game disk.  Many times the developers would  not say a word about a new game until it was ready for purchase in its final form.  That way no one got their expectations out of whack as to when a game was going to be released.  Also back then there was no such thing as "Early Access." The game was sold as a final product subject to hotfixes (called patches back then) if there were problems.

One thing I really miss from those days was getting a nice, thick bound manual replete with nice pictures included with some sims.  I remember having a ritual in which right after buying a  sim with a thick manual from a store, stopping at a restaurant or bar on the way home and gleefully reading  the manual like a fine novel.  I still have most of those old manuals.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Yes, totally, and what about the great and marvellous ritual of bearing with the bugs you just bought for ever when there never were patches at all .

[MAXsenna]

Someone doesn't remember the Falcon 4.0 hype and Interactive Magic's F-22 among others.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Skewgear]

Interesting thread, which I'm late to.

From the multiplayer point of view, it's not that complex. What makes a server thrive is the community around it - and player numbers in the list. In DCS success breeds success: the more players on your server, the more will come and join it.

Currently there are three active multiplayer WW2 DCS servers. One is mostly empty except for when the squadron who set it up is on it and/or running an event; another is a dogfight oriented server that's relatively busy sometimes; and the best of them is Project Overlord, naturally.

Lots of people over the years have complained that PO isn't to their taste, and have demanded that we do x/y/z or rebuild it as a carbon copy of My Favourite Jet Dynamic Campaign Base Capture Training Expert Milsim Casual Hardcore Server. We've ignored all that and will cheerfully continue building our own thing for the future.

Any multiplayer game is about the people you're playing with and the challenge the game poses. Players want to be pushed to make decisions and then make them succeed, and they want to do that while challenging other humans. I know the PO formula doesn't always do that - but what it does do is create multiplayer squadrons of like minded people who are happy to fly with and against each other.

I cannot create squadrons. All I can do is help create a MP server that's rewarding for squadrons to fly on, within the PO vision of a historically accurate server. Mostly we've succeeded at that.

A vocal minority really dislikes the historical accuracy thing and demands fundamental changes to suit themselves (more of this aircraft type, less mission objectives far away, no bad weather, etc). To them I say: there are about 30-40 servers available under the search term "ww2" in the DCS MP server browser. Most of those offer exactly what the minority wants. Yet nobody chooses to fly on those, despite it being free to do so.

People who fly DCS WW2 do so mainly because they love the history. They love the idea of recreating what grandad and great grandad did in the war, and trying out the old tactics, tricks and tips from the books.

What do we need to grow MP, and thus DCS WW2 as a whole? More squadrons. More group activities. More events. More reasons to come and fly with us. If each of us brought a new player along, and encouraged others to form up in groups and fly together, this could be a really fun and vibrant community.

[motoadve]

I like PO a lot, want more people? You probably know this, German side wants MW50,that is what I hear the most about why they don't fly PO, I fly German, PO is not a Dogfight arcade arena, you can do good without MW50, its more tactical.

But people don't want to be at a disadvantage, the P51 and P47 models are also ahead of the dates we fly in PO, but there is no way to limit them.

Give it a try to see if it works in more numbers by adding MW50 to some of the Doras, I know that would make some people happy and will join.

We need a Germany map, and all would be a lot easier, no complains.

Keep the good work.

[Sezai]

On 10/23/2024 at 11:19 PM, motoadve said:

I like PO a lot, want more people? You probably know this, German side wants MW50,that is what I hear the most about why they don't fly PO, I fly German, PO is not a Dogfight arcade arena, you can do good without MW50, its more tactical.

But people don't want to be at a disadvantage, the P51 and P47 models are also ahead of the dates we fly in PO, but there is no way to limit them.

Give it a try to see if it works in more numbers by adding MW50 to some of the Doras, I know that would make some people happy and will join.

We need a Germany map, and all would be a lot easier, no complains.

Keep the good work.

I agree with you.. German pilots want no restrictions with their plane, especially on MW50, and more slots in different airfields. As you mentioned P51D is also not historical as well. Also even though I enjoy the historical accuracy, I'd rather fly an opponent match with what I fly. As we all know Germany lost the war and one of the main reasons was losing the air superiority. We should be not be reenacting history rather simulate it. However as one of the fellows here mentioned 4YA has some certain rules and there will never be MW50 for Doras well I respect their decision but I also see that many Axis Pilots avoid fighting there and that is very why it is usually not balanced. Again I should say, it is a server with certain rules and if you do not like it you do not fly there, simple. 

[Lau]

What a nice surprise to read WW2 updates on the last changelog, please keep them coming ED and thanks for listening to your customers 

Interesting topic I will read through.

At the moment what is holding me back from joining WW2 servers is the broken artificial horizons on all warbirds, I was thrilled to join the 4YA server and their extensive use of clouds, unfortunately, I noticed that the artificial horizons are of no use in their current development state. In an era where there was no stealth, clouds where extensively used to sneak throught the enemy lines or simply to escape.

The problem has been reported for over a decade, recently acknowledged by ED and reported to the dev team as high priority for all warbirds, I hope that we will soon have the good surprise to see this long standing issue fixed in a not too distant changelog.

artificial-horizon bug report

Thanks,

Edited October 31 by Lau

[Lau]

I am trying to put in to good use WW2 air navigation maps covering England, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany, this is in my point of view the map that we need, a map covering important parts of all these countries at the same time as opposed to individual countries. I personally do not see the interest of having a detailed Eiffel Tower, Versailles and so on, yes we need them to be represented but just as a VFR landmark for navigation purposes and in low poly, current maps are very poorly detailed in that perspective, yet you will find a very detailed telephone booth cabin, wanna make a phone call?

That brings me to my next point : By using real WW2 maps as a reference for navigation the problem that pops up immediately is the lack of VFR landmarks across the DCS maps, VFR was the predominant method of navigation in WW2, the easiest method of navigation in real life, yet the very poor details of our current maps in that perspective do not allow us to simulate this important aspect of WW2 air navigation. DCS concentrates in short hops from an airport directly in to battle and return if you are lucky, even during these short hops you can feel the lack of realism of DCS maps with regards to the air navigation ground details. Maps are simply not realistic with regards to air navigation, not necessarily talking in comparison to the real WW2 maps but more about the required level of detail for VFR navigation (read: information from the 3D world vs information on the in game navigation map F10).

While I understand that there were no satellite pictures of the earth in the 40s, I find it would be a game changer for me if at least details represented in DCS WW2 maps could match their real counterpart with regards to villages, towns, cities shape, forests locations and names. These details should be clearly indicated in a HD on board map that we could use for VFR navigation via the F10 function. Recognize a lake, a hill, a town shape with its bridges and so forth, these are the details I am after when approaching a VFR waypoint. Yes you have DR, but visual clues would be very much welcomed.

Even if the DCS map does not exactly match the reality, I am more after the tools to simulate air navigation than the 100% realism compared to the real map, to that extent, I would be ok for the map designer to include unrealistic details provided they are of use to air navigation in  game and in low poly so they can be added across larger maps. These details are of course of no use if pilots are not made aware of where they are located, unless of course each one of us build its own data base on the go as we fly. Still the need to merge all these information in a useful VFR landmarks map would certainly be of good use to the community. A bit like it is done for the helipads in other maps.

Ugra provided us a nice touch and hint of their good will by offering a real WW2 map overlay on Normandy 2.0, this overlay is more misleading at the moment than anything since the current virtual world does not match in many regards the details from the real map, here I am just talking about major details like town locations, names, shapes and other important visual clues for air navigation in the area simulated by the map.

Now and as I wrote, I am well aware of the fact that ED has recognized that most players log in to DCS to fight and have not necessarily the will to spend too much time flying from one place to the other, most of these players can see their position in the F10 map like a GPS anyway. My observations are however based on small training navigation exercises over the Normandy 2.0 map from Ugra in the UK, looking for that small village where I need to provide CAS to the troops on the ground within a time frame or reorient myself after having evaded an attack from fighters, very challenging in the current state of the map with that unified green ground color and autogen ground details. What I am trying to say is that the map looks pretty much the same all around.

Now I know what you are thinking, bigger maps mean more detailed airports, cities and to a certain extent with the current development method you are right, even though I do not consider the current Normandy 2.0 airports to be very detailed for that matter, it’s not the high poly hangars, it’s the overall atmosphere, I could do with less detail on the airports, cities and an option to pay for a more detailed approach separately provided, we could have bigger maps as previously stated. I would really enjoy longer navigations like it is possible in other sims, that and real weather conditions, say today’s weather forecast depicted in the sim.  

I am also well aware that these are just words in the air during times where WW2 development has been in an abandon state for so long, however ED has made me see things in a positive way after the couple of lines included for WW2 warbirds and assets in the latest update.

ED is gifted by the incredible support of a community that has shown time after time how patient we can be, despite the legit rant because our passion does not makes us fools, most of us have many of the other modules and see the global picture and as such, expect global support from ED across all the products sold on their store, more importantly we are here to remind them of their commitment and the fact that abandoning WW2 warbirds and asset pack development will undoubtedly also have consequences on their sales across other expensive products. WW2 warbirds and asset pack are part of aviation history and we enjoy it as much as flying on any other modern and expensive module that we have purchased to satisfy our passion, something that we also often did as just one more sign of our support to ED.

ED give us confidence in your WW2 products and you will see the servers being populated symmetrically to your product updates, confidently moving from early access to a released state in a timely manner seems the only way forward.

Thanks,

 

[Slippa]

A while back someone called Fred I think started posting loads of pictures and info in the Ugra section.

There were shots of airfields, aerial shots and pretty detailed plans of buildings or structures on the airfields. There are thousands and thousands of aerial shots around mapping most of what was occupied Europe so if one wanted to, accurate maps could be made of the period. Unfortunately, for whatever reason Ugra didn’t even reply to these threads that Fred was posting in. Not even a thanks but no thanks.

It seemed a bit odd to me, personally I’d love everything to be as accurate as possible. Roads, landmarks, railway lines (with trains that work properly, Canterbury Cathederal , Rochester Castle etc etc. We can’t have everything I know and map makers can’t please everyone. I’m sure they’re having a good go.

 

[Netrunner]

On 10/23/2024 at 4:19 PM, motoadve said:

I like PO a lot, want more people? You probably know this, German side wants MW50,that is what I hear the most about why they don't fly PO, I fly German, PO is not a Dogfight arcade arena, you can do good without MW50, its more tactical.

But people don't want to be at a disadvantage, the P51 and P47 models are also ahead of the dates we fly in PO, but there is no way to limit them.

Give it a try to see if it works in more numbers by adding MW50 to some of the Doras, I know that would make some people happy and will join.

We need a Germany map, and all would be a lot easier, no complains.

Keep the good work.

I agree that we need a Germany map. I think a Battle of Berlin map would be an excellent choice personally as I was thinking of what map would work with our late war aircraft and the upcoming La-7 and the eventual Me-262. We would be able to have both Western and Eastern fronts on the same map provided it is made large enough.

[Lau]

On 11/1/2024 at 2:26 PM, Slippa said:

A while back someone called Fred I think started posting loads of pictures and info in the Ugra section.

There were shots of airfields, aerial shots and pretty detailed plans of buildings or structures on the airfields. There are thousands and thousands of aerial shots around mapping most of what was occupied Europe so if one wanted to, accurate maps could be made of the period. Unfortunately, for whatever reason Ugra didn’t even reply to these threads that Fred was posting in. Not even a thanks but no thanks.

It seemed a bit odd to me, personally I’d love everything to be as accurate as possible. Roads, landmarks, railway lines (with trains that work properly, Canterbury Cathederal , Rochester Castle etc etc. We can’t have everything I know and map makers can’t please everyone. I’m sure they’re having a good go.

 

There are sims where this passion is not gone to waste for the simple reason that developers have drawn a limit to how far they are prepared to push their work. Once that limit is established they have opened to the community the possibility to develop maps, 3D objects with damage model and in no time, all this free work became available to the community.

When I came across the research work of the person you mentioned, I could also not help but to reflect about that, where is this zone limit? Is it too early to offer Ugra all this passion and potential free work? Will that come later down the road? By the look of things, not even ED has the answer to these simple questions. Also and from a business perspective; is Ugra selling enough maps to justify the time investment to handcraft all these historical details? Again we need the big picture to understand but, the lest “no thank you” cannot be excused since a minimum of customer service should be maintained at all times and for every product sold on the ED front store.

I have only reported one bug on the Normandy 2.0 related to the magnetic variation being wrong compared to the real WW2 overlay map of 1944. The bug was fixed internally without anyone acknowledging my message, moved to “fixed” by BN after I reported it to be fixed. There is hardly any soul down there working on the WW2 front apart from the occasional 9L message after several months of a bug report, acknowledging and moving the status to “reported” or “investigating” and then, well hardly any return on our investment and a road map that is certainly out of track. I have never seen any reply from Ugra other than a couple of lines on the change log updates incredibly spaced into time. The Normandy 2.0 map is in early access, I do not know for you but, to me there is not enough development activity, perhaps justified by low sales since the WW2 warbirds and asset pack has also been in an abandoned state for a long time.

Referring back to customers support: To me the only reason BN was around that they to move my bug report to “fixed” is because he was just monitoring all my messages to see if he could squeeze another warning. 60 points for fighting my way to get a refund on the F15E and 10 points for writing another sims name, yet, I see 9L freely writing them in he’s messages. The last time 9L could not help it but to delete a couple of our messages before moving the bug report related to the warbirds artificial horizon problem to “reported”, they call this “cleaning”. What I am saying is not black and white, we need moderation and can see how passionate we all are, starting by the fact that we do not all have the same age, but moderation on the ED forum has been so heavy handed that it became obvious that it was more intended at protecting EDs failures in order to protect its current business, a business model based on promises and trust from its customers base. It is sad to see that many of us are currently disappointed, yet we are prepared to be patient and see things move in the right direction with important and timely changelog updates. It is scary to me that after almost 1000€ of investments from one customer, they show us that they are short on cash to deliver. More products come out and we are stock with BN and 9L for the customer support side  (ED products and Ugra). Why is the company not hiring more staff at all levels to back up the company expansion? No wonder we are told BN and 9L are super busy, but that is not what I would have expected from a company with the level of ambitions promoted through EDs marketing campaigns.

I have an unlimited passion for airplanes but, I must say that I feel reassured to see videos on you tube pointing the problems we are facing as customers with ED, this with the only hope that a positive outcome will come out of them; courtesy is a matter concerning all parties and it can be of no surprise to ED that in the current state of things matters escalate within the community.

Thanks,

Edited November 3 by Lau
small typo

[Licenceless]

On 5/24/2024 at 6:01 PM, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Well, that's true. But I haven't paid a cent for a Corsair yet, you know. What alarm should it ring exactly? the only one should be the "it's not coming" (which we know untrue, the pics and vids are there, not as often as we'd like, sure, still there) and... I haven't paid a cent yet, the day I'd bought a module and without my money in my hand I got nothing that'll ring a bell for me, sure it will. Until then I can only wish them the best and an as fast as possible release since I'd like to fly that bird for sure. Anyway, the criticism here looks like it's whining about a module have disappeared and they run with my money, or the like. I haven't seen that yet mate. Why would I feel entitled about something I haven't bought yet? Can't understand that part. Eagerness for having it, Ok, complain about not having it like I already paid something... hmmm... nope...

Well, I guess the point here is that we already invested in ww2, Corsair being made is in it self a problem (at least for me). 

Imagine it this way: (it's a weird example but please bare with me) You see a new promising "build your self" car on the market, lets say a Ford; it has the best suspension and very good traction, better than anything on the market, it's on the expensive side but for true enthusiasts it's worth it. Problem is the the company hasn't made all the parts yet. It's missing a lot of features like a dashboard and what not, no horn, no windows etc.. You still buy it because you're enthusiastic about the product and it's very promising, very good base to go forward from. All of the sudden the company starts making just the seats floor mats for a completely different car and they contract someone to make a hood and that contractor has been making that hood for 8 years even though other contractors pump out good quality ones on a much more stable basis. Than you wonder, "who is going to buy that, it has little promise and potential and the company hasn't even finished completing MY car yet". You loose faith in the company and you feel cheated out of your money especially when the same company makes electric cars which are much more complex but they still make more of them.