Is it time to give up on DCS ww2?

[SharpeXB]

32 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

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

It’s funny you keep saying that like it would make a difference in popularity or that it’s not possible in DCS. Go start a server like that and see who’s up for it.

Most all real air combat (with some very rare exceptions) is or was differential or “imbalanced” that’s actually what makes it interesting, playing strengths or weaknesses against one another. In a realistic sim like DCS I imagine you'll find more players interested in that than fantasy combat. 
But the lack of this mode is not why DCS is a niche. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s funny you keep saying that like it would make a difference in popularity or that it’s not possible in DCS. Go start a server like that and see who’s up for it.

Most all real air combat (with some very rare exceptions) is or was differential or “imbalanced” that’s actually what makes it interesting, playing strengths or weaknesses against one another. In a realistic sim like DCS I imagine you'll find more players interested in that than fantasy combat. 
But the lack of this mode is not why DCS is a niche. 

Its my opinion based upon long experience and I am free to express it as often as I like. 

[Kang]

22 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. 

 

 

I'm not even so sure about that. When the intermediate plan is to make somewhat low-complexity much simplified modules, one could actually try a few things with those. I'm talking less about Hellcat vs 109G and more about: how would, say, a Ju-88 work out? There has been a lot of talk about a Stuka coming one day, and I think that DCS:WW2 as an ecosystem definitely needs more modules beyond fighters.
Personally I find the Mosquito is a good step in that regard, it is just sadly plagued with a lot of serious issues, definitely incomplete and, again, progress is being rather slow.

15 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

• 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.

 

Yea, that's a good point, but lets not forget how ED has said the exact same thing about FC3 itself and look what they've suddenly done. Converted existing modules into FC3 variants rather than fix the issues these exact modules have had for years and years.

[Silver_Dragon]

40 minutes ago, Kang said:

I'm not even so sure about that. When the intermediate plan is to make somewhat low-complexity much simplified modules, one could actually try a few things with those. I'm talking less about Hellcat vs 109G and more about: how would, say, a Ju-88 work out? There has been a lot of talk about a Stuka coming one day, and I think that DCS:WW2 as an ecosystem definitely needs more modules beyond fighters.
Personally I find the Mosquito is a good step in that regard, it is just sadly plagued with a lot of serious issues, definitely incomplete and, again, progress is being rather slow.

Yea, that's a good point, but lets not forget how ED has said the exact same thing about FC3 itself and look what they've suddenly done. Converted existing modules into FC3 variants rather than fix the issues these exact modules have had for years and years.

A Bf-109G require a extend research (similar to the missing Me-262 module from RRG studios missing yet on DCS), and a Ju-88 module require WW2 multicrew, gunner posts and bombing post, sights / bombload funtionalities on the core, prior to make them. a Stuka was talked time ago by Miltech 5 when was part on the past and Polychop team before split, but never was confirmed and the project was discarted / put on the fridge. By now, none ED or 3rd Parties has move to make a "bomber" module on WW2, and the logical module as testbed will be a Moskito B.MIV/VII with the bomb crew / systems / FM and extend bomb bay.

Someone need remember the actual "FC-2024" was part of the never release MAC (Modern Air Combat) standalone product, that is none new, ED only take your modern combat FF modules and convert them to FC Style, and that was maked by the modern modules teams, no the WW2 teams. Convert the actual WW2 modules will doom all actual WW2 develop, has a not go.

Edited May 17 by Silver_Dragon

[=475FG= Dawger]

There is nothing in military aviation better suited for AI than a WWII level bomber. AI will always do WWII level bombing in a more realistic fashion (stay in formation, on speed and altitude).

And WWII level bombers, if modeled completely, would suck up far too many player slots.

[Silver_Dragon]

18 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

There is nothing in military aviation better suited for AI than a WWII level bomber. AI will always do WWII level bombing in a more realistic fashion (stay in formation, on speed and altitude).

And WWII level bombers, if modeled completely, would suck up far too many player slots.

The slots number not will be a problem, on fact a gunner or bomber, not need simulate a pilot slot complexity and surely, the slot number on servers will be expanded on the future. Making "bomber" modules on WW2 DCS has only a matter of time.

Edited May 17 by Silver_Dragon

[Kang]

2 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

There is nothing in military aviation better suited for AI than a WWII level bomber. AI will always do WWII level bombing in a more realistic fashion (stay in formation, on speed and altitude).

...and yet even the Asset Pack only gives us one and a half.

Edit: They are especially suited to DCS AI, because a lot of the major issues that AI has are much less pronounced and noticeable here.

Edited May 17 by Kang

[Licenceless]

@Kangstuka is not a good choice because it doesn't add to the current theatre, similar to i16 stuka wasn't in use in 44 anymore, that is why iI think F4U and F6F are a waste. Also, i don't know anything about this "transforming existing FF modules into FC", i was talking about making new ones, if they made like 2 or 3 new FC style modules for Normandy accurate to the map and period it would bring that necessary interest to boost WW2 for some time, meanwhile they could either work on another batch of planes for the same period and theatre or keep working on existing ones and transforming them into FF, slowly but surely

Edited May 23 by Licenceless

[Silver_Dragon]

18 hours ago, Licenceless said:

@Kangstuka is not a good choice because it doesn't add to the current theatre, similar to i16 stuka wasn't in use in 44 anymore, that is why iI think F4U and F6F are a waste. Also, i don't know anything about this "transforming existing FF modules into FC", i was talking about making new ones, if they made like 2 or 3 new FC style modules for Normandy accurate to the map and period it would bring that necessary interest to boost WW2 for some time, meanwhile they could either work on another batch of planes for the same period and theatre or keep working on existing ones and transforming them into FF, slowly but surely

 

That stament has false:

• ED The channel map has a WW2 map centred into 1940-44.

Remember ED has plans to build Bob modules after PTO (Confirmed by Nick Grey).

• Ugra Media Normandy 2.0 has centred on 44.

About F4U and F6F has a waste, has a complete Nonsense, remember ED has working Marianas WW2 to release with that modules free, centred on Battle of the Philippine Sea / Mariana and Palau Islands campaign, and with secundary Battle of Guam (1941) with propper PTO assets.

The only "mising link" actualy, has not present a propper East Front Maps and Assets (to mach with Octopus-G I-16 / La-7 / Po-2), the rest of the actual modules match with actual The Channel / Normady 2.0 Maps. And no, FC WW2 aircrafts dont go to "boost" WW2 (None plans by ED / 3rd Parties), all planed modules has FF, and that has the main distintive makr of ED WW2, has your propper realistic FF modules.

And about a Ju-87 Stuka module, continue on plans by Miltech 5 3rd Party, surely after Bo-105 release.

Edited May 24 by Silver_Dragon

[_Hoss]

The P-38 Lightning is a must have for the ETO and PTO maps. I'm sorry but the F6F wasn't used to escort B-17s off the islands, but P-38s were. I believe the Corsair is vapor ware. We'll have a true Pacific game coming soon enough. I'd lay money it will be finished and on the net before anything of any substance comes out of any DCS developer for the PTO. We didn't need the South Atlantic, or the Kola map, or a MODERN Sinai map. A time period correct Vietnam and Korean Peninsula maps for Early and Cold War plane sets is a very soon must have. Ctrl

An A-6E and A-7E and F-8. F9F Panther, F4U-4, Skyraider, and Sea Fury are nice additions for these maps..... 

JM2CW

• 

[Rudel_chw]

2 hours ago, _Hoss said:

We didn't need the South Atlantic, or the Kola map, or a MODERN Sinai map.

 

Please, dont be selfish ... perhaps you dont want those maps, but I'm really happy with my Kola map.

[LucShep]

14 hours ago, _Hoss said:

The P-38 Lightning is a must have for the ETO and PTO maps. I'm sorry but the F6F wasn't used to escort B-17s off the islands, but P-38s were. I believe the Corsair is vapor ware. We'll have a true Pacific game coming soon enough. I'd lay money it will be finished and on the net before anything of any substance comes out of any DCS developer for the PTO. We didn't need the South Atlantic, or the Kola map, or a MODERN Sinai map. A time period correct Vietnam and Korean Peninsula maps for Early and Cold War plane sets is a very soon must have. Ctrl

An A-6E and A-7E and F-8. F9F Panther, F4U-4, Skyraider, and Sea Fury are nice additions for these maps..... 

Have to agree with most of the first paragraph.

Just my opinion, but I see these announcements with aircraft and maps for the Pacific War period of WW2, and I get the feeling that devs are eating more that they can chew.
Plus, I too don't understand why the F6F instead of the P-38 (??).
And yes, there's that promissing WW2 Pacific combat flight-sim coming that I too tend to believe will be released (good or bad) before we see PTO in DCS, considering the extremely slow pace the development has have here.

Instead, I think more period correct (free?) assets, updates and more matching modules to potencialize and complete what is already there in DCS WW2 would have been better, to make it more consistent and coherent (it's anything but). Again, just my opinion.

Now, for the correct conflict time period Vietnam and Korean maps and respective aircraft, that's a different matter altogether.
I honestly don't think there's PC hardware potent enough yet (no matter the cost) for DCS to run thick forested terrains such as those, in VR - we'd need a completely new game engine IMO (maybe with Vulkan)....

Edited May 24 by LucShep

[Silver_Dragon]

13 hours ago, _Hoss said:

The P-38 Lightning is a must have for the ETO and PTO maps.

Meanwhile ED or 3rd parties has no "claimed" yet, a P-38 module, surely that will coming.

13 hours ago, _Hoss said:

I'm sorry but the F6F wasn't used to escort B-17s off the islands, but P-38s were.

You remember the Marianas campaign was a aeronaval carrier main battle (Great Marianas Turkey Shoot).... and the Marianas invasion inself was main sopported by carriers forces?. And About B-17s, that was supresed by B-24, and B-29 after (No pressent yet on WW2 Assets Pack) on the pacific.

13 hours ago, _Hoss said:

I believe the Corsair is vapor ware.

Sure? O yes, M3 working has a no sense...

13 hours ago, _Hoss said:

We'll have a true Pacific game coming soon enough.

Breaking rules?

13 hours ago, _Hoss said:

I'd lay money it will be finished and on the net before anything of any substance comes out of any DCS developer for the PTO.

WW2 ETO, PTO has only a part of DCS, and surely more content will coming to them in the future.

13 hours ago, _Hoss said:

We didn't need the South Atlantic, or the Kola map, or a MODERN Sinai map.

Content builded by 3rd parties...

13 hours ago, _Hoss said:

A time period correct Vietnam and Korean Peninsula maps for Early and Cold War plane sets is a very soon must have.

You remember ED has claimed them? and waiting to forward the map technology to make propper Vietnam and Korea maps?

13 hours ago, _Hoss said:

An A-6E and A-7E and F-8. F9F Panther, F4U-4, Skyraider, and Sea Fury are nice additions for these maps..... 

Many of them, on progress by 3rd Parties (except F9F & Sea Fury yet).

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

Just my opinion, but I see these announcements with aircraft and maps for the Pacific War period of WW2, and I get the feeling that devs are eating more that they can chew.
Plus, I too don't understand why the F6F instead of the P-38 (??).

Nick Grey F6F access to a flyable aircraft on The Fighter Collection...

Edited May 24 by Silver_Dragon

[LucShep]

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

13 hours ago, _Hoss said:

I believe the Corsair is vapor ware.

Sure? O yes, M3 working has a no sense...

You know what, he has a point. And one that is valid, not an exaggeration.

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.
 

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Meanwhile ED or 3rd parties has no "claimed" yet, a P-38 module, surely that will coming.

Cool.
But, looking at the glacial pace of other aircraft development (F4U example I just gave), it begs the question ---- "when?"
 

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

WW2 ETO, PTO has only a part of DCS, and surely more content will coming to them in the future.

Oh boy.... I hope my grandchildren will be able to run it, because I really start to doubt that it'll be out in our lifetime.

Edited May 24 by LucShep

[Slippa]

47 minutes ago, LucShep said:

I think more period correct (free?) assets, updates and more matching modules to potencialize and complete what is already there in DCS WW2 would have been better, to make it more consistent and coherent (it's anything but). Again, just my opinion.
.

This is what I’m on about.

Instead of jumping on to the ‘next shiny idea’ they should make a proper job of what’s been started then move on from there. 

 

[Silver_Dragon]

16 minutes ago, LucShep said:

You know what, he has a point. And one that is valid, not an exaggeration.

You see, the F4U Corsair development was announced 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.

Vague WIPs... Last Annual Newsletter 2023
https://magnitude-3.com/2023/11/04/2023-annual-update/

And more news after. And ED posting over 2 years on "202X and beyond" videos...

with the M3 PTO assets pack on 2024... OMG. ED has a loseer to put that content on your main year video... really?

16 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Cool.
But, looking at the glacial pace of other aircraft development (F4U example I just gave), it begs the question ---- "when?"

Oh boy.... I hope my grandchildren will be able to run it, because I really start to doubt that it'll be out in our lifetime.

The same excuse, "Drama", and "glaciar pace" with the F/A-18C / F-16C / Mi-24P / AH-64D / F-14 / F-4E... and now F4U, F6F, A-6E, A-7E, OH-58D, Bo-105, CH-47F, Mig-29A... "put your module here". Please, nothing new here.

Edited May 24 by Silver_Dragon

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Vague WIPs... Last Annual Newsletter 2023
https://magnitude-3.com/2023/11/04/2023-annual-update/

And more news after. And ED posting over 2 years on "202X and beyond" videos...

with the M3 PTO assets pack on 2024... OMG. ED has a loseer to put that content on your main year video... reall

The same excuse, "Drama", and "glaciar pace" with the F/A-18C / F-16C / Mi-24 / AH-64 / F-14 / F-4E... and now F4U, F6F, A-6E, A-7E, OH-58D, Bo-105, CH-47F, Mig-29A... "put your module here". Please, nothing new.

"Drama", really? 

Excuse me but, please amuse my curiosity - can you explain how is nearly seven years of development, for one single WW2 aircraft, with nothing more than notes and screenshots WIP released, not the true definition of "glacial pace" ?

I'm genuinely curious to read/hear what is a "normal" dev-time period for one warbird in DCS, in your opinion?

And, heck, don't even get me started on the Kiowa or the Fulcrum, it might pop a vein in my wee brain... 

Edited May 24 by LucShep

[Silver_Dragon]

34 minutes ago, LucShep said:

"Drama", really? 

Excuse me but, please amuse my curiosity - can you explain how is nearly seven years of development, for one single WW2 aircraft, with nothing more than notes and screenshots WIP released, is not "glaciar pace" ?

I'm genuinely curious to read/hear what is a "normal" dev-time period for one warbird in DCS, in your opinion?

And, heck, don't even get me started on the Kiowa or the Fulcrum, it might pop a vein in my wee brain... 

 

You missing all develop videos? has other modules present here with has take years and yes, has the release "Drama" (the ED Mosquito FB.MVI was a example) inself about "Where are my X module" (the last the HB F-4E).... but when release that magicaly disapear. DCS has no a "normal" dev-time, that has confirm them many times, the modules on DCS has none a "deadlines, promises or write on stone", has only a "when it done", you need pacience, nothing more. A M3 has put a "silent radio" from many time ago.

And talking about the Kiowa... will comming on June..."Two Weeks (TM)".

About Fulcrum, remember "2024 and Beyond" video, FF module on progress finaly by ED

Edited May 24 by Silver_Dragon

[LucShep]

11 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

DCS has no a "normal" dev-time, that has confirm them many times, the modules on DCS has none a "deadlines, promises or write on stone", has only a "when it done", you need pacience, nothing more.

Then why tease people with stuff that will be many, many years away?

I've been around DCS since the years of LOMAC, through FC2, BS and Warthog, and never understood this philosophy introduced with DCS post May/2012.
It's awful practice, IMHO.

To announce things when they're close to be presented is the correct aproach all across the gaming industry, niche simulation genres included.
Otherwise, everything is potentially vaporware and frankly easy to not take it seriously.
 

11 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

You missing all develop videos? has other modules present here with has take years and yes, has de "Drama" (the ED Mosquito FB.MVI was a example) inself about "Where are my X module" (the last the HB F-4E).... but when release that magicaly disapear. DCS has no a "normal" dev-time, that has confirm them many times, the modules on DCS has none a "deadlines, promises or write on stone", has only a "when it done", you need pacience, nothing more.

And talking about the Kiowa... will comming on June...

About Fulcrum, remember "2024 and Beyond" video, FF module on progress finaly by ED

I receive the notifications from ED every friday, also aware of the Roadmap.
And, of course, it's impossible to miss the "NEXT YEAR AND BEYOND" videos, as was M3's "New Year Update" (F4U Corsair) back in 2017......

Edited May 24 by LucShep

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, LucShep said:

Then why tease people with stuff that will be many, many years away?

We share stuff for the future - people get upset. We don't share stuff about the future - people get upset. There is no way to please everyone. 

Fact is development is difficult, it can take years, be happy and enjoy what we have, more modules are coming, we are getting very busy with releases. 

When any team are ready to share more news they will, they all put a lot of work into what they do and deserve support and encouragement. 

thank you  

[Silver_Dragon]

9 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Then why tease people with stuff that will be many, many years away?

I've been around DCS since the LOMAC, though the FC2, BS and Warthog years, and never understood this philosophy introduced with DCS post May/2012.
It's awful practice, IMHO.

I have here from the Flanker times, and that "awful practice" has only a normal develop process on FF modules (with the industry has none interest)... that is better with other "promisses" claimed by some disapear teams with dont make nothing. Remember M3 has three modules owner, that is not a team with started on DCS World now.

9 minutes ago, LucShep said:

To announce things when they're close to be presented is the correct aproach all across the gaming industry, niche simulation genres included.
Otherwise, everything is potentially vaporware and frankly easy to not take it seriously.

I receive the notifications from ED every friday, also aware of the Roadmap.
And, of course, it's impossible to miss the "NEXT YEAR AND BEYOND" videos, as was M3's "New Year Update" (F4U Corsair) back in 2017......

DCS has not a normal "gaming industry" product... But some like put all ED / 3rd party projects as continuos "Vaporware" from Ka-50 times.

[LucShep]

@Silver_Dragon you made your point(s), but cross that with the concerns expressed in this thread.
Presenting facts with WIP and promises of upcoming content with no release date whatsoever doesn't excuse nor fix the problems expressed.

I also understand the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" as  @BIGNEWY explains, but the current aproach for DCS WW2, as this thread (and others) suggest, is just not going well .
 

[Silver_Dragon]

2 hours ago, LucShep said:

@Silver_Dragon you made your point(s), but cross that with the concerns expressed in this thread.
Presenting facts with WIP and promises of upcoming content with no release date whatsoever doesn't excuse nor fix the problems expressed.

I also understand the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" as  @BIGNEWY explains, but the current aproach for DCS WW2, as this thread (and others) suggest, is just not going well .
 

The "not going well" has the same situation with start DCS World about modern content some years ago, and actualy we reach here with a great quantity of FF modules, maps and Assets.

As I put previously, making WW2 FC-3 aircrafts has no the point here and dont go to "save" WW2. And no, ED has moving on buiding features to DCS and modules with open new roads on WW2, no making "planesets" to fill gaps or "save WW2" (They have own plans).

The main point here, has need more and more 3rd parties centred on make more WW2 content to DCS (FF modules, maps and Assets) plus the actual teams (M3 / OctopusG), that is the only suitable road. And actualy has many roads no moved (Mediterranean / Italy / Balkans / East / Germany / SCW Front), with will expand that era. The same situation with aircrafts (France, Italy, Germany, URRS, Japan, Usaf).

 

Edited May 24 by Silver_Dragon

[LucShep]

On 5/24/2024 at 1:21 PM, Silver_Dragon said:

The "not going well" has the same situation with start DCS World about modern content some years ago, and actualy we reach here with a great quantity of FF modules, maps and Assets.

As I put previously, making WW2 FC-3 aircrafts has no the point here and dont go to "save" WW2. And no, ED has moving on buiding features to DCS and modules with open new roads on WW2, no making "planesets" to fill gaps or "save WW2" (They have own plans).

The main point here, has need more and more 3rd parties centred on make more WW2 content to DCS (FF modules, maps and Assets) plus the actual teams (M3 / OctopusG), that is the only suitable road. And actualy has many roads no moved (Mediterranean / Italy / Balkans / East / Germany / SCW Front), with will expand that era. The same situation with aircrafts (France, Italy, Germany, URRS, Japan, Usaf).

That's a tremendously dismissive response. And close to what I think might be the problem also from the developers.

If you've read through this thread, as has been with others, the problem goes far beyond the "more modules", although more is very welcome (that too is a part of the problem).

You don't have, never had, the same sort of problems in DCS with jets, be it modern or CW era ones, that you have with the old Warbirds.
So no, it's not comparable to "the same situation with start DCS World about modern content some years ago". Like, at all.

OK OK we get it...
It takes a long time to make big complex maps.
And it takes many years to make new complicated warbirds (funny enough, more than it did for the real life counterparts, it seems!).

Maybe to fix first what is there already would be easier and would have been more productive, no?

How about...

• fixing the AI aircraft, which (last time I checked) don't seem to care about engine management (WEP all the way)?
• fixing silly ultra accurate AAA, as currently it ruins ground attack and makes missions and campaigns pretty much unplayable?
• making different versions of planes that we already have, so that Allies vs Axis can match correctly, as they were in the specific period? 
• making free Assets packs, so that all can use them, as it should have been from the start?
• making the battlefield look period correct, with the massive conflict that WW2 was (entire divisions should be there), instead of dead, dull and lifeless scenarios with a handful of units?

Make what is there worth buying for all those who have been in the fence for so many years (and going instead to the competitors), and for those who already bought it.
Then these sort of complaints will disappear, and the sales numbers will increase along with popularity, and users satisfaction.
Otherwise, it's just semi-functional incoherent content locked in a tiny niche, inside another niche, that will most likely be ignored.

As it is, with or without the PTO, F6F or F4U, doesn't matter, it's still a pass for me.

Edited May 27 by LucShep
spelling(?)

[Silver_Dragon]

1 minute ago, LucShep said:

That's a tremendously dismissive response. And close to what I think might be the problem also from the developers.

If you've read through this thread, as has been with others, the problem goes far beyond the content, although more is very welcome (that too is a part of the problem).

You don't have, never had, the same sort of problems with jets, be it modern or CW era ones, that you have with the old Warbirds.
So no, it's not comparable to "the same situation with start DCS World about modern content some years ago". Like, at all.

Has better quantity vs quality, that is the solution?

1 minute ago, LucShep said:

It takes many years to make big complicated maps, to make new complicated warbirds (funny enough, more than the real life counterparts did, it seems!)..... ok ok we get it.
Maybe fix first what is there already would be easier and more productive, no?

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

1 minute ago, LucShep said:

How about...

• fixing the AI aircraft, which don't seem to care about engine management (WEP all the way) ?

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

Quote

 

General Flight Model (GFM) for AI Aircraft
Whilst the updated BFM AI can make a significant difference in how the AI flies, the General Flight Model (GFM) will provide improved flight dynamics for AI aircraft that better constrain the aircraft to true-to-life performance.

GFM is a significant improvement to the Standard Flight Model (SFM) that is based on drag and thrust characteristic trajectories. The SFM can provide a good Center of Gravity trajectory model, but it relies on reliable source data to tune the overall performance that includes the entire flight envelope, sustained and instantaneous turn rate, energy gain, etc.

GFM adds additional short-period aircraft movement by adding our base solid body, contact models and aerodynamic moments. This results in more realistic control displacements during maneuvers that provide more human-like appearances. With GFM, the AI will also encounter wake turbulence.

 

1 minute ago, LucShep said:

• fixing silly ultra accurate AAA, as currently it ruins ground attack and makes missions and campaigns pretty much unplayable?

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.

1 minute ago, LucShep said:

• making different versions of planes that we already have, so that Allies vs Axis can match correctly, as they were in the specific period? 

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

1 minute ago, LucShep said:

• making free Assets packs?

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.

1 minute ago, LucShep said:

• making the battlefield look like the massive conflict that WW2 was (entire divisions should be there), instead of a dead, dull and lifeless scenario with a handful of units?

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.

1 minute ago, LucShep said:

Make what is there worth buying for all those that have been in the fence for so many years (and going instead to the competitors).

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

1 minute ago, LucShep said:

As it is, doesn't matter if or without PTO, F6F or F4U, it's still a pass for me.

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.