DCS World 2.0 and New Maps Discussion Thread

[siipperi]

Looks truly stunning. I would hope they would add more variety to grass. Make small bushes and so on. Would be truly epic to have grain plants on the fields to make them more immerse.

 

I hope ED can/is already have team that is just working on land-modules, that looks so exciting.

[shagrat]

Can the grass, trees and buildings burn and can we put deep craters in the terrain with a Mk-84 or similar weapons? That's what is needed for CA or any other module that is closely tied to ground combat, terrain that can be molded and shaped by participating forces on the battlefield... destroyed. A 70 ton tank cause a lot of damage to the land it travels over and a lot of them will really scar the land and destroy roads/trails and can create mobility difficulties for follow on vehicles. Trees that are modeled for collisions and AI units that cannot see through foliage are very important as well. The screen shots are very pretty... I hope that is not the extent of the 2.0 edge implementation. I'd like to see a difference in the soil as well with Hard packed earth that an aircraft can land on, bogs, swamps, ponds, lakes, rivers, creeks, streams, rocky terrain, ravines, freshly ploughed fields, forest, jungle and sand dunes to name a few examples. Differing terrain types and flowing waters are essential for the Combined Arms module and any DCS level Tanks/Fighting Vehicles that may be on the horizon. The ability to mold the terrain would be epic as it would enable the possibility to set up user made FARPS and forward airstrips virtually anywhere. DCS Seabee anyone?

Fascinating! The greatest update for DCS World isn't yet released or any details about the features, but people ready themselves for further complains and "important" missing features... and you people really wonder why ED stopped publishing any news or plans until 5 minutes before release?! :doh:

[komemiute]

I know that maybe I'm just a little kid- when it comes to making intel collimate...

 

But... Wags says...

 

Dear all,

 

Please do not fret, we have not forgotten about the August Update. We are simply merging it with a much larger DCS World update that we will release in early September. 2014

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

And then we read...

 

Dear users!

Due to scheduled maintenance of the DCS website and E-Shop, Module Manager, and Multiplayer (master server) services may be unavailable on Tuesday, September 2 starting at 08:00 UTC.

 

Our apologies for the inconvenience.

 

Are they taking down all the stuff for the update?

Are we getting something, maybe? Or maybe not- but it could still be ground work for the release of DCS World 2.0...

[FraserNZL]

Fascinating! The greatest update for DCS World isn't yet released or any details about the features, but people ready themselves for further complains and "important" missing features... and you people really wonder why ED stopped publishing any news or plans until 5 minutes before release?! :doh:

 

Yup totally agree with ya mate its never enough for some people

[shagrat]

Oh, and by the way, there is a wishlist thread!

[siipperi]

Fascinating! The greatest update for DCS World isn't yet released or any details about the features, but people ready themselves for further complains and "important" missing features... and you people really wonder why ED stopped publishing any news or plans until 5 minutes before release?! :doh:

 

That is valid criticism and good points. If company can't take constructive feedback maybe they just should stop working on the game. Always isn't the best thing to but your fan classes on and say everything is perfect. Feedback from fans can be really important for them to see what people like to see in the game that dev team didn't even think of. Just because someone isn't agreeing with you doesn't mean he's wrong.

 

IMO he made good points though those might be hard to include in the game.

[shagrat]

Yet, they belong in the wishlist and suggestions thread? I don't criticise the points, rather than the attitude! "Unless this flight SIM isn't implementing all the features I want to make it a Tank SIM, I'm not happy!"

Especially the "Line of sight/see through trees and buildings" comment was a bit funny... if they don't fix THAT any terrain stickiness simulation and destructible environment is pretty much useless.

 

And we've seen this kind of posts for a lot of years now. And they ARE one of the reasons ED has stopped communication on details not carved in stone.

As for the "We the customers who buy this game" argument. You are aware that a majority of the companies contributing to this SIM are also working on professional simulation equipment? We are lucky ED did go the way and create something like DCS for the public audience. Currently there isn't even a remotely competeting product out there, in terms of modern air combat.

I don't say we can't improve, but we should consider ED, even including their partners and 3rd parties have not the resources of Electronic Arts etc. Still they bring us a SIM experience that all the major companies considered a financial waste of resources long ago.

So like it or not, if DCS World is not good enough for you, you are stuck with ArmA, CoD, BF4 or World of Tanks/Airplanes/Lawn mowers, whatever...

 

Just my oppinion, of course and you are free to differ.

 

For my part I'm more than happy and excited about the things to come with EDGE and DCS World 2.0

Edited September 2, 2014 by shagrat

[*Rage*]

Nice grass!

[B25Mitch]

8.) self shadows of terrain / on mountains ?

 

As far as I'm aware, there's no terrain self-shadowing for the Georgia map.

[NineLine]

Wow...no update today? Very taxing on my reason to stay with ED?

 

huh? :wacko:

[DSPALLASVI]

Shagrat

Fascinating! The greatest update for DCS World isn't yet released or any details about the features, but people ready themselves for further complains and "important" missing features... and you people really wonder why ED stopped publishing any news or plans until 5 minutes before release?!

My thoughts exactly!

 

Vampyre:

That is valid criticism and good points. If company can't take constructive feedback maybe they just should stop working on the game. Always isn't the best thing to but your fan classes on and say everything is perfect. Feedback from fans can be really important for them to see what people like to see in the game that dev team didn't even think of. Just because someone isn't agreeing with you doesn't mean he's wrong.

IMO he made good points though those might be hard to include in the game.

 

Of course feedback from fans is important to the dev. team.

But do you REALLY:( think the dev. team hadn't thought of "trees and buildings that burn" and "deep craters in the terrain" or "bogs, swamps, ponds, lakes, rivers, creeks, streams, rocky terrain, ravines, freshly ploughed fields, forest, jungle and sand dunes" to name a few examples.

I bet they wake up from dreaming about 3D-HD-VR worlds that are nearly indistinguishable from the world we live in.

Then..., after breakfast..., they face the real world of "limited PC power / financial resources" balance and make more compromises.

The wishlist points are well taken, but shouldn't we wait first(!) until the new update comes out, and THEN see what can be checked off?!?:book:...

Just a thought....:huh:

[Vampyre]

Yet, they belong in the wishlist and suggestions thread? I don't criticise the points, rather than the attitude! "Unless this flight SIM isn't implementing all the features I want to make it a Tank SIM, I'm not happy!"

Especially the "Line of sight/see through trees and buildings" comment was a bit funny... if they don't fix THAT any terrain stickiness simulation and destructible environment is pretty much useless.

 

And we've seen this kind of posts for a lot of years now. And they ARE one of the reasons ED has stopped communication on details not carved in stone.

As for the "We the customers who buy this game" argument. You are aware that a majority of the companies contributing to this SIM are also working on professional simulation equipment? We are lucky ED did go the way and create something like DCS for the public audience. Currently there isn't even a remotely competeting product out there, in terms of modern air combat.

I don't say we can't improve, but we should consider ED, even including their partners and 3rd parties have not the resources of Electronic Arts etc. Still they bring us a SIM experience that all the major companies considered a financial waste of resources long ago.

So like it or not, if DCS World is not good enough for you, you are stuck with ArmA, CoD, BF4 or World of Tanks/Airplanes/Lawn mowers, whatever...

 

Just my oppinion, of course and you are free to differ.

 

For my part I'm more than happy and excited about the things to come with EDGE and DCS World 2.0

 

Well, I do differ. The stated goal of DCS World, from what I have read, is to be more than just a flight simulator. It seems not everyone shares the idea of ED's grand scheme of a digital combat simulator and only consider DCS World to be just a flight simulator. ED's vision is far broader than just flight simulation and that is the disconnect for a lot of the players who have flown aircraft in DCS (Flaming Cliffs, LOMAC, Su-27 Flanker) for many years... they think it is just a flight sim and the effort ED is putting into other areas to improve the immersion level for all aspects of its digital combat simulator is a waste of resources. That kind of thinking will keep your niche market a niche market. Expansion of the options within the simulation will serve to draw in more people. Computer simulations are similar to movies or theatre in that they require the willing suspension of disbelief by the audience to be successful. If EDGE is the game changer I think it is then the features I have mentioned may be possible for the first time and open up so many more possibilities. That was the purpose of my post in a thread for DCS World 2.0 and new maps vice the wish list thread. The terrain varieties are essential to any DCS armored/helicopter/ship simulation and for immersion of the players who wish to truly use the digital combat simulator to its fullest extent. It doesn't matter for jet aircraft flying thousands of feet in the air so it is not needed right? I see the list as being a necessary list of terrain features to truly make for an engrossing virtual battlefield. I have been happy with everything ED has done to improve the game and make it more like a simulation to date. As for the attitude perception you have dredged from my post, it is indeed your opinion... as is almost everything posted on these forums. Assuming it was aimed at me, I'm not sure where your "we the customers" argument comes from but you need not put words in my mouth that I did not utter.

[159th_Viper]

Wow...no update today? Very taxing on my reason to stay with ED?

 

Watch out for that door on the way out......springs are mighty stiff. Might end up with a bruised posterior.

[Fri13]

Especially the "Line of sight/see through trees and buildings" comment was a bit funny... if they don't fix THAT any terrain stickiness simulation and destructible environment is pretty much useless.

 

I believe you mean my comment about that.

 

Sorry but it isn't funny demand. It belongs to everything in COMBAT simulation. If You want flight simulation, then get X-Plane or Microsoft Flight Simulator.

 

If You want a Combat Simulator, where airplanes are used to attack against ground forces or even avoid ground forces, it is required that LOS/Trees work realistically.

You clearly have not flied attack helicopter or ground attack plane like A-10A/C or Su-25(T) when Your opinion is that it is funny to need realism to LOS.

 

War isn't fought on billiard table, there is lots of crap blocking your possibility to engage and spot target.

 

And it isn't fun when Su-25T SHKVAL system automatically locks to units that has spread out to forest to get cover.

 

Or that unit with radar is searching and tracking you behind forest like magically trees doesn't block radar. And then You should visually aim to that unit a laser guided missile.

And it isn't funny to operate a ground unit and try to seek air cover by driving edge of forest so air unit is surprised to close range as they can't find you.

 

It isn't funny that TGP/SHKVAL systems inertial tracking doesn't work as should, when LOS is broken for few seconds and requires to find target again and lock to it.

 

It isn't funny when weapons can be locked to target as long there is no building or terrain blocking the line of sight.

 

It isn't funny to fly a attack helicopter and you can't get cover from forest but every missile fly trough them as nothing. Every laser pass trough them guiding missiles, radar goes trough and leads shell rain on you.

And there you rally are in billiard table, lots of visual cover that doesn't help You at all. No buildings near by, no hills or anything.

 

To get it in context, it is exactly like situation where IR missile would see any heat source trough any kind clouds, or that clouds would totally block radar waves, even if being just light haze. Or missiles could fly trough ground or radar see trough mountain....

 

It isn't funny.

But as you clearly are just a fighter pilot who fly only against air targets, You don't understand what it is to not be able use targeting system benefits and work around their weaknesses when it comes to CAS. The challenge to really seek the ground units and plan the directions based terrain, instead just what other units are on area.

 

I take any day a working LOS system over ANY visual effect from smokes to New maps or fake depth of field. Even over new units as they suffer from same problems as current ones.

 

And when it comes to ground unit control, it would be a much nicer to even command units when it would be possible use limited LOS to get closer on engagement ranges. Try to drive a IFV to flank a MBT with ATGM behind forest, only to find out that MBT see you and opens fire trough forest and you don't have line of sight or range to fire back or get any kind cover. And it isn't funny when SACLOS or even MCLOS missiles are fired trough bushes or tree lines and guided to moving target without wires being cut off.

 

For some people it seems to be funny that the basic features that are required to be in combat simulation, would come in new game engine, bringing benefits and challenges to ALL CURRENT UNITS making the simulation funnier and more pleasing.

 

It has nothing to do with simulating ground vehicles interiors or their firing solution procedures or targeting systems. Just the basics that touch every flying unit as every ground unit.

 

And reason why there isn't communication from developers is that if they can't inform what are their plans and people can't stop wishing new units or new maps or asking ETA, they will stop communicating as there is always one smartass saying "ETA to promises map/unit?" few times a week.

[Fri13]

. A 70 ton tank cause a lot of damage to the land it travels over and a lot of them will really scar the land and destroy roads/trails and can create mobility difficulties for follow on vehicles.

 

Not much actually. A Leopard 2A4 example has smaller pressure per square centimeter than 75kg weighting man does. Even when MBT is tens of tons heavy, it is very light to terrain.

 

Three tracks are ultimately we'll weight distributors. The damage to ground comes when tracked vehicle rotates or speeds up,brakes on soft ground.

[kk0425]

I have a crazy idea. Lets enjoy what ED can afford to release based on whatever resources they have instead of complaining about why we don't have X feature or Y airplane or Z update. I dare say that every single person that plays has their own wishlist of features that they would like to be added and it's likely that most of these are on their to-do list but they have decided on more important things to be done first. ED has the ultimate decision to choose what is most important to add or fix.

 

Wanting something is fine, but complaining about why your personal wishlist didn't take top priority is not okay.

[shagrat]

I believe you mean my comment about that.

 

Sorry but it isn't funny demand. It belongs to everything in COMBAT simulation. If You want flight simulation, then get X-Plane or Microsoft Flight Simulator.

On the contrary! I meant Vampyre's statement that LOS issues are "also"important. For me that issue and the numerous AI wayfinding bugs are paramount to fix before even considering something like destructible terrain.

If you all had read my post carefully, I 'm neither opposed to any of the wishes he posted to enhance the SIM, nor am I saying I don't want a Combat simulation.

What I said is simple and plain: feature request have a place in the wishlist sections (that is not meant humorous, there really are wishlist threads).

Also, I said and meant, these posts usually lead to complains later when XY feature is not in the update and others posting like "but I read somewhere this feature will come" are not uncommon.

 

So please don't try to put me in that "don't want enhancements to his flightsim" corner.

 

I hope ED is bringing a lot of improvements and maybe even new features to DCS World with 2.0, but I'd rather wait and see what we get already and THEN see what is still missing...

Edited September 3, 2014 by shagrat

[Grizzly1606688174]

 

I take any day a working LOS system over ANY visual effect from smokes to New maps or fake depth of field. Even over new units as they suffer from same problems as current ones.

 

+1.

Gameplay before graphics.

[leafer]

 

I take any day a working LOS system over ANY visual effect from smokes to New maps or fake depth of field. Even over new units as they suffer from same problems as current ones.

 

 

You'd have to take both. It'd be disastrous if they didn't improve LOS in their new engine, don't you think?

[Fri13]

You'd have to take both. It'd be disastrous if they didn't improve LOS in their new engine, don't you think?

I would take both. But so many only talks about graphics and new performance for higher end computers, without talking about improved physics and simulation for player vs player, player vs AI and AI vs AI.

 

But if it would be just a graphics and performance update by that, without fixing LOS and similar features, it is catasrophy.

 

Like I sent those couple CA screen shots and new third party map video to friend and he didn't say almost anything good from those. Typical way was negative about artificial depth of field, grass rendering (as he doesn't fly helicopters) and other visual "clutter" that might make gameplay harder for him.

 

I like the blurred feature as long it is done correctly, like simulating a heat waves when temperature raises and player looks far. But not the close range blurring as my own eyes does it already naturally when looking at display (only very small part from while view is sharp in humans vision). Meaning when it would be winter or colder temperature set in game weather engine, it would clear the visibility distance.

 

It (blur) can as well improve the long range engagements where unit in hide can be harder to spot than moving unit.

 

In this kind situations I can accept new visuals as long it does raise simulation level.

 

As well as i like how the smoke is now in planes, making it little easier to go dog fights as it is easier to spot enemy directions. But again the Nvidia vs AMD graphical difference is another problem(?).

 

So first time I saw new tree models instead plain sprites, I got first time excited as it would change whole simulation at once for all current modules.

[VincentLaw]

But if it would be just a graphics and performance update by that, without fixing LOS and similar features, it is catasrophy.

I disagree. It would not be a catastrophe... It would be exactly what we already have, but with improvements in graphics.

 

To me... any improvement is an improvement. I don't understand how improvements can make things worse for some people?

 

Yes I want line of sight to be fixed, but I don't mind if they improve the game incrementally. I don't need to get all of my favorite features in one big giant mega update.

 

I would rather be playing EDGE right now with the current line of sight implementation than wait X months to play EDGE with improved line of sight. Either way it would have better line of sight in X months, but in one of those I get EDGE sooner.

[Fri13]

On the contrary! I meant Vampyre's statement that LOS issues are "also"important. For me that issue and the numerous AI wayfinding bugs are paramount to fix before even considering something like destructible terrain.

If you all had read my post carefully, I 'm neither opposed to any of the wishes he posted to enhance the SIM, nor am I saying I don't want a Combat simulation.

What I said is simple and plain: feature request have a place in the wishlist sections (that is not meant humorous, there really are wishlist threads).

Also, I said and meant, these posts usually lead to complains later when XY feature is not in the update and others posting like "but I read somewhere this feature will come" are not uncommon.

 

So please don't try to put me in that "don't want enhancements to his flightsim" corner.

 

I hope ED is bringing a lot of improvements and maybe even new features to DCS World with 2.0, but I'd rather wait and see what we get already and THEN see what is still missing...

I apologize mistaking You to mean my post.

 

I personally I don't care when feature X comes, but if something is told to come by developers in specific version and then doesn't come without explenation, it makes me sad. But if there is no promise but just even suggestion, no one should get angry that update doesn't bring something.

[Exorcet]

+1.

Gameplay before graphics.

I generally agree, but let's not forget that graphics can impact gameplay. For DCS, graphical performance is pretty important. A lot of aircraft rely on visual target spotting and one thing that's been missing from existing terrain is the ability to pick out one location from another. It's hard to call an airstrike on the green building when everything is white and one of 3-4 different repeating shapes.

[Python]

I generally agree, but let's not forget that graphics can impact gameplay. For DCS, graphical performance is pretty important. A lot of aircraft rely on visual target spotting and one thing that's been missing from existing terrain is the ability to pick out one location from another. It's hard to call an airstrike on the green building when everything is white and one of 3-4 different repeating shapes.

 

Beat me too it, is isn't always black & White, there needs to be a balance.

[aeliusg]

If EDGE works anything like it's supposed to there's no way it can be any worse. Turn DOF and grass off, and it'll look as good or better compared to the old engine with better performance. At least that's how it should work.