DCS WWII: Europe 1944

[hegykc]

I have to say, it is a great thing to see this passion and people so protective over the sim they love. I feel the same way and I want DCS to truly achieve the incredible potential it has. My first comment is this: ED/RRG have to gear their product to an extent to "marketing metrics." It's a matter of survival. And we all need this to occur...despite what you think you may want. While I commend everyone for insisting on quality and fidelity, certain decisions are based off chances of success and risk mitigation. As has been said in prior posts, very delicately I must add, if the financial backing of this entire endeavor was dependent upon only the contributions of our devoted forum members, this project wouldn't have a chance. Funding is required and it has to be generated in a wide scope. Please try to be aware of the big picture while expressing "the love of the game".

 

That's all there is to it. It's not about making the most wonderful sim, it's about making a sim that sells.

I'm pretty sure that all, all of our ideas would flop as commercial products. Somebody has to be the grownup and make the hard decisions.

 

I trust they thought long and hard, and went with the best compromise...

[gavagai]

As Luthier said, the DCS World crowd isn't exactly the intended audience. He's after the people who are into WW2 sims, and many of them still haven't tried the DCS P-51 because it lacks its own environment. Making a separate World with a time-period appropriate UI makes sense.

 

1944 ETO is a very good choice for a theater. While I would prefer MTO, the ETO might actually get Americans to put away their shooter games and participate. I am so tired of Clod and RoF multiplayer servers being empty during the North American evening!

[Echo38]

That's all there is to it. It's not about making the most wonderful sim, it's about making a sim that sells.

I'm pretty sure that all, all of our ideas would flop as commercial products. Somebody has to be the grownup and make the hard decisions.

 

Five years ago, I would have sadly agreed with you. But now I have DCS: A-10C and DCS: P-51D on my side. Eagle Dynamics have shown me that what I had long thought impossible is actually possible, if someone has the love, care, determination, and intellect to do it.

 

Being someone who enjoys both modern and old aircraft (although I prefer the WWII fighters above all), I'm on the boat that isn't happy about the idea of another full installation for something that doesn't seem to really need another full installation. However, as long as Luthier can make the aircraft of approximately the same quality as the P-51, I can forgive the installation frustration!

Edited September 2, 2013 by Echo38

[Merlin-27]

...multiplayer servers being empty during the North American evening!

 

Amen brother. It's slightly ironic that there is such a small contingent of people flying the North American P-51D online here in the US of A. Where is everyone? I feel like knocking on doors at this point.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Merlin-27

[Double_D]

Amen brother. It's slightly ironic that there is such a small contingent of people flying the North American P-51D online here in the US of A. Where is everyone? I feel like knocking on doors at this point.

 

Its a new breed of computer generated thinkers...

 

I personally love the P-51D Mustang and what DCS has accomplished with it..cheers...

[Echo38]

A number of my associates have displayed interested in the P-51, but don't fly it because they don't enjoy same-ship matchups. While I do enjoy P-51 versus P-51 duels, I must agree that different-ship matchups are much more interesting, being more complex and dynamic, and involving a greater degree of pilot skill.

 

As for myself, there's only one thing keeping me from spending hours every day dogfighting in our wonderful P-51D, and that's my bloody hands. It's maddening to have such a well-done simulator, after all those years of using lesser sim-games and wishing there were sometihng better, but now that I have at last found it, am unable to use it. : /

[empeck]

As Luthier said, the DCS World crowd isn't exactly the intended audience.

 

Strange decision. A product should be aimed at all potential users.

 

He's after the people who are into WW2 sims, and many of them still haven't tried the DCS P-51 because it lacks its own environment.

 

Yet many of them tried DCS P-51 just because it's there in their sim of choice.

[Raven68]

I guess you missed this part!

 

Originally Posted by luthier1

The Mustang and the Dora will be a part of the initial release.

 

DCS WWII will be its own product however. It will not be a DCS World plugin, but an entirely new environment. Other products will be mutually compatible, so you'll be able to plug an A-10 into DCS WWII if you so choose, or a B-17 into DCW World.

 

I seen that post, but I'm coming from a stand point of maintenance and management. Myself I dont want to do two installs, but rather one and a simple activation and switch that will point to the allocated WWII era objects, maps and UI. I know its still early and its all still gray, but these are just my petty thoughts on the matter. :)

[Double_D]

A number of my associates have displayed interested in the P-51, but don't fly it because they don't enjoy same-ship matchups. While I do enjoy P-51 versus P-51 duels, I must agree that different-ship matchups are much more interesting, being more complex and dynamic, and involving a greater degree of pilot skill.

 

The new Era has only just begun...

[streakeagle]

I like the Strike Fighters 2 implementation for mixing time frames and geography: each object contains complete information about who used what during what time frame. Using a single install, you can play anywhere and anywhen without getting WW2 aircraft in your Yom Kippur War and vice versa. At the same time, you can create a mod folder that is period specific with minimal duplication. So, if you create a separate mod folder for WW2 era if you really want to without duplicating the core game. But the official releases always cross-connect: if you install SF2:Vietnam, SF2:Europe, and SF2:North Atlantic you get a separate customizable mod folder for each one, but every object and terrain is available no matter which exe you run. The main difference is that the menus are customized per mod folder. I was assuming DCS was heading in that direction rather than having completely separate games for each era or theater. With SF2, I always run the latest release (currently SF2:NA), but from that menu, I can select everything I own and end up with historically/geographically correct matchups using random single player while still having the flexibility to use the mission editor to create any hypothetical matchup I want. I would much prefer it if DCS World worked the same way :(

[Double_D]

but I'm coming from a stand point of maintenance and management.

 

As in my other post .. I mentioned it would be far easier to do updates to DCS World/DCS WWII in a singular issue than a multiple issue..if DCS WWII isn't broken then why have to go inside the whole package for a DCS World issue or vice versa.. Separate World's would be far more simple to deal with..and not shutting down everyone else...for a DCS World or DCS WWII issue..

 

Example:

 

DCS World / DCS WWII combined issue = everyone is affected

 

DCS World issue = only DCS World users affected

 

DCS WWII issue = only DCS WWII users affected

Edited September 2, 2013 by Double_D

[gavagai]

Strange decision. A product should be aimed at all potential users.

 

 

 

Yet many of them tried DCS P-51 just because it's there in their sim of choice.

 

Fair enough. I'm glad that some people here are interested in branching out. Most of the time I read doom n' gloom here in the world forum whenever WW2 is mentioned.

[Merlin-27]

A number of my associates have displayed interested in the P-51, but don't fly it because they don't enjoy same-ship matchups. While I do enjoy P-51 versus P-51 duels, I must agree that different-ship matchups are much more interesting, being more complex and dynamic, and involving a greater degree of pilot skill.

 

As for myself, there's only one thing keeping me from spending hours every day dogfighting in our wonderful P-51D, and that's my bloody hands. : /

 

You should tell them that it may take a bit to master the "flying" part of the DCS: P-51D...we all know there is plenty of excitement in the beginning even without an enemy. :)

 

Have you looked into bionic appendages? Maybe we can work a group purchase if you include a new ankle for me.

[zaelu]

Fair enough. I'm glad that some people here are interested in branching out. Most of the time I read doom n' gloom here in the world forum whenever WW2 is mentioned.

 

This kind of mind set is very disappointing. Branching out... Like they just buy Crytek engine and off they go... Oh well...

 

I am a fan of WW2 planes and my squad (D13th) mostly played that era. But we like also Jets and helicopters and a bit of civilian planes. It seems they will stay in different installs... so... why not play BOS then?

[-MadCat-]

As in my other post .. I mentioned it would be far easier to do updates to DCS World/DCS WWII in a singular issue than a multiple issue..if DCS WWII isn't broken then why have to go inside the whole package for a DCS World issue or vice versa.. Separate World's would be far more simple to deal with..and not shutting down everyone else...for a DCS World or DCS WWII issue..

 

Example:

 

DCS World / DCS WWII combined issue = everyone is affected

 

DCS World issue = only DCS World users affected

 

DCS WWII issue = only DCS WWII users affected

 

In case DCS:W and DCS:WWII are intented to be multiplayer compatible, you may want to think a little further.

Once you update one world, you may brake compatibility between the two.

It may then take weeks/ few months, until the next patch for the other world is released and reestablishes compatibility.

It could be possible that we have more compatibility down time, than we are able to fly together with the other world.

 

And that is in fact a separation of the community.

 

Make it optional to install it stand alone and to merge everything together.

Those who are ok with the separation or are just interested in one of the worlds can do so,

and everyone else who enjoys the ever growing "toolbox" that DCS:W was supposed to be can do a merged installation.

 

I personally don't like the idea of two installs and wish for the possibility of a merged installation.

 

My 2 Cents, no more, no less

MadCat

Edited September 2, 2013 by -=MadCat=-

[gavagai]

This kind of mind set is very disappointing. Branching out... Like they just buy Crytek engine and off they go... Oh well...

 

I am a fan of WW2 planes and my squad (D13th) mostly played that era. But we like also Jets and helicopters and a bit of civilian planes. It seems they will stay in different installs... so... why not play BOS then?

 

What is disappointing?

 

We keep explaining again and agian, BOS will not have the same level of fidelity as DCS, and many are tired of the Eastern front from the old il-2 series.

[sylkhan]

In case DCS:W and DCS:WWII are intented to be multiplayer compatible

They are even more than that :) they intended to be module compatible, in fact they are identical

DCSW=DCSWWII

Except GUI :)

[Nate--IRL--]

As in my other post .. I mentioned it would be far easier to do updates to DCS World/DCS WWII in a singular issue than a multiple issue..if DCS WWII isn't broken then why have to go inside the whole package for a DCS World issue or vice versa.. Separate World's would be far more simple to deal with..and not shutting down everyone else...for a DCS World or DCS WWII issue..

 

Example:

 

DCS World / DCS WWII combined issue = everyone is affected

 

DCS World issue = only DCS World users affected

 

DCS WWII issue = only DCS WWII users affected

 

Following that logic we would have 8 different installs of DCS currently. Also it is a fallacy, because in order for modules to be compatible between the two, they both have to be using the same code version.

 

So basically what seems to be doing is Duplicating DCS - just for providing Alternate GUI's. It doesn't make sense to me at all. There are better ways to distinguish between the Two products than to have 2 installs that are 99% the same.

 

IMO (not that that means much) WW2 should be following the modular approach we already have, with maybe it's own GUI resources as part of the WW2 module for the DCS core. Start with the DCS:WW2 icon? Arrive in a WW2 GUI customised for WW2. Start with DCS World Icon, arrive in the GUI we have now.

 

Each GUI will allow switching between both modes. This Would affect what is available in the ME too, related to time period. With another free for all mode, where anything goes, all modules and Time periods enabled for selection.

 

It has already been said that this will sort of be possible in either World or WW2 so why would I want to install both? Why separate them? It would be better to have them auto select WW2 or other GUI, on install depending on what the user believes they are downloading. DCS remains the same underneath.

 

Nate

Edited September 2, 2013 by Nate--IRL--

[-MadCat-]

They are even more than that :) they intended to be module compatible, in fact they are identical

DCSW=DCSWWII

Except GUI :)

 

It was mentioned to be seperate worlds.

Modules are said (so far) to be compatible with both, yes.

 

BUT:

This does say nothing about the compatibility of the two worlds itself.

If person A plays DCS:W and person B DCS:WWII, can both connect to one and the same server ? !

What if DCS:W gets updated, but DCS:WWII update is another 2 months out ?!

Will that brake the compatibility ?

If so, you have to delay one update until the other is done too to not brake the compatibility.

Else you may end up with different update cycles and have 2 weeks compatibility between 2 months incompatibility..

 

That is what I was talking about.

 

Greetings

MadCat

Edited September 2, 2013 by -=MadCat=-

[Merlin-27]

They are even more than that :) they intended to be module compatible, in fact they are identical

DCSW=DCSWWII

Except GUI :)

 

and ground units...as far as I know.

[empeck]

They are even more than that :) they intended to be module compatible, in fact they are identical

DCSW=DCSWWII

Except GUI :)

 

Also: Su-25T/freeware flyable of DCS: WWII and maps.

[sylkhan]

in order for modules to be compatible between the two, they both have to be using the same code version.

 

So basically what seems to be doing is Duplicating DCS - just for providing Alternate GUI's. It doesn't make sense to me at all. There are better ways to distinguish between the Two products than to have 2 installs that are 99% the same.Nate

Exactly

[sylkhan]

Also: Su-25T/freeware flyable of DCS: WWII and maps.

You have to choose. But why not.

Some fly the p-51 in DSCW

[zaelu]

What is disappointing?

 

We keep explaining again and agian, BOS will not have the same level of fidelity as DCS, and many are tired of the Eastern front from the old il-2 series.

 

We? Are you part of RRG? And where are you keep explaining again and again? And who is asking for such explanations? And how do you know the difference in fidelity? From what?

 

Is this the reason to break from DCS World? Because many are tired of the east front?

 

I don't think so.

 

The question: "Why wouldn't we have the posibility to play a DCS World scenario (with tanks and other assets not just Ka50 and A10C) over "Normandy"? You know... a "cold war" scenario

 

Has the answer... because we are sick of eastern front?

 

 

 

Does anyone knows if Ka-50 ever flew over Nevada? Cause maybe another split is in order... :doh:

Edited September 2, 2013 by zaelu

[hegykc]

Five years ago, I would have sadly agreed with you. But now I have DCS: A-10C and DCS: P-51D on my side. Eagle Dynamics have shown me that what I had long thought impossible is actually possible, if someone has the love, care, determination, and intellect to do it.

 

Being someone who enjoys both modern and old aircraft (although I prefer the WWII fighters above all), I'm on the boat that isn't happy about the idea of another full installation for something that doesn't seem to really need another full installation. However, as long as Luthier can make the aircraft of approximately the same quality as the P-51, I can forgive the installation frustration!

 

Exactly my point. I vote for the all-in-one sandbox sim.

 

But, if they decide that separate installations are the safest bet for this new endeavor to be a financial success, then by all means, go ahead, make your payday. Just bring me my WWII study sim, I'll take it anyway they are able to serve it.