DCS WWII: Europe 1944

[cichlidfan]

This is very OT but can someone explain how the reputation points and reputation bar (green thingy) work?

 

Skim through this thread. I think it covers most things about rep.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=70482

[kontiuka]

^

thanks much

[Wolf Rider]

;)

 

It's probably not a major issue for most fans; at least less of an issue than constantly getting your suspension of disbelief jolted by out-of-place objects for the time period.

 

 

yeah, I can see that keeping the time periods consistent would take a fair bit of under the hood code rejigging to achieve, possibly even to the point of having to create a whole new interface to World. Perhaps this will happen time, as it did with the pre DCS:World environment (legals permitting?)

Edited September 2, 2013 by Wolf Rider

[leafer]

Perhaps they've decided that each developer is solely responsible for updating their World and is the reason for two separate installations? You take care of yours and we will ours. I don't know. Don't care. This is too exciting. I will definitely shut up and pay up. Take my paycheck! Take it! Here take some more! :D

[PFunk1606688187]

I don't understand why the possiblity of having the separate time periods mingling is impossible while still allowing for suspension of disbelief to remain?

 

Shouldn't it really be just as simple as having a way to tell the mission editor to segregate the resources between those things branded "WW2" and those things branded "everything modern" and then have the option to flip a switch and have them mingle?

 

I mean honestly people. You see airshows where modern birds fly with WW2 birds. Unless I'm reading this wrong, are we seriously looking at a DCS WW2 product that will barre me from doing a Republic heritage flight with a P-47 in formation with an A-10? Please tell me I misinterpreted the scope of what luthier said.

[cichlidfan]

Unless I'm reading this wrong, are we seriously looking at a DCS WW2 product that will barre me from doing a Republic heritage flight with a P-47 in formation with an A-10? Please tell me I misinterpreted the scope of what luthier said.

 

Modules will be cross-compatible.

 

Modules will be mutually compatible. So if you bought say an A6M5 Zero in 2016, or whenever it is we may end up in the Pacific, you could choose to put it into WWII or World.

[Merlin-27]

I don't understand why the possiblity of having the separate time periods mingling is impossible while still allowing for suspension of disbelief to remain?

 

Shouldn't it really be just as simple as having a way to tell the mission editor to segregate the resources between those things branded "WW2" and those things branded "everything modern" and then have the option to flip a switch and have them mingle?

 

I mean honestly people. You see airshows where modern birds fly with WW2 birds. Unless I'm reading this wrong, are we seriously looking at a DCS WW2 product that will barre me from doing a Republic heritage flight with a P-47 in formation with an A-10? Please tell me I misinterpreted the scope of what luthier said.

 

 

If I understand the preceding 60+ pages correctly....

 

-The two cores are divided by era. Think present world vs. 1944.

-Most aircraft will continue to be modules that can be shared between the two cores.

-You can create your heritage flight with modern and WWII era aircraft in DCS:World and they will be flying in your modern environment (like an actual heritage flight)

-OR you can do the reverse (think Final Countdown) and bring your Jet back in time to scare the crap out of the prop jobs :)

 

Sounds like a win-win to me. Now, as far as the next year of waiting... Torture. At least we might have the 190 beforehand??

[leafer]

So far I'm pretty content with everything that is announced.

 

My first wish would be to see RRG dump the icons that act as objects on the map, and come up with a way to allow players to visually see the objects as they are, intuitively manipulate its orientation and move it around to the exact location we want on the map in DCS WWII mission editor. ED ain't gonna let us do it in theirs, so please make this a possibility. It is really frustrating having to go back and forth between in-game and ME a dozens of times just to move the vehicles around on a farp.

[NineLine]

So far I'm pretty content with everything that is announced.

 

My first wish would be to see RRG dump the icons that act as objects on the map, and come up with a way to allow players to visually see the objects as they are, intuitively manipulate its orientation and move it around to the exact location we want on the map in DCS WWII mission editor. ED ain't gonna let us do it in theirs, so please make this a possibility. It is really frustrating having to go back and forth between in-game and ME a dozens of times just to move the vehicles around on a farp.

 

I think the core games will remain the same, so functionality changes like that would have to be done with both I would assume....

[PFunk1606688187]

If I understand the preceding 60+ pages correctly....

 

-The two cores are divided by era. Think present world vs. 1944.

-Most aircraft will continue to be modules that can be shared between the two cores.

-You can create your heritage flight with modern and WWII era aircraft in DCS:World and they will be flying in your modern environment (like an actual heritage flight)

-OR you can do the reverse (think Final Countdown) and bring your Jet back in time to scare the crap out of the prop jobs :)

 

Sounds like a win-win to me. Now, as far as the next year of waiting... Torture. At least we might have the 190 beforehand??

 

Yea see I missed the one sentence that described that. I did read this however:

 

We actually think that a large part of the community will want to have things separate.

 

I can understand the majority opinion here on the forums right now, because at this time DCS is still a modern jet sim with a strong but limited foray into WWII. In my personal experience though, a large number of WWII fans don't care for modern aviation, and vice versa.

 

Because that confused me. :P

 

I guess in retrospect it looks like they're talking about having a separate .exe.

[cichlidfan]

@leafer

 

We're not planning any changes to the mission editor for DCS WWII specifically.

[cichlidfan]

I guess in retrospect it looks like they're talking about having a separate .exe.

 

They are actually talking about it being a completely separate, although compatible, installation.

 

The modules would work something like ORBX terrain, which at install allows you to select whether to install into FSX or Prepar3d.

[beczl]

We can probably finish the basic game without the kickstarter, but it'll be a little less of everything, especially on the ground.

I have many ground units available for WW.II era. All of them are aligned and tested for DCSW, Combined arms. Has their accurate own weapon characteristic as well. If you need need some of them later on or cooperation or whatever just send me a PM. :smartass:

[-Rudel-]

...which at install allows you to select whether to install into FSX or Prepar3d.

 

No way. If it has to be separate then I prefer to install them in both. There will be people making missions on both maps and it'll be a hassle to uninstall/install, and probably unregister/reregister.

 

If anyone read my message earlier, it should be a merged install similar to Third Wire's Striker Fighters. Then the team can have their separate exe for a WW2 themed GUI and WW2 only planes if so desired. There can be a separate DCS:WW2 bin directory if it's merged.

 

Even so, at least the maps, aircraft, textures, etc will be in one place. No need to double up on modules taking up space.

 

Again, if it must be separate, I hope his team finds a way to read the modules and maps from DCS:W, and ED read the modules from DCS:WW2. So we don't have to move files.

[cichlidfan]

I am not thrilled with the idea of separate installs either but, as it is so early in development, I am will to wait and see how things pan out.

 

Perhaps something as simple as a symbolic link done at install, where you would have a choice to install into World, WWII or both.

[zaelu]

Oh, and since I already left, one more point.

 

Separate installs also allow us to create a separate WWII-themed GUI. It's more important than it seems!

 

 

We already have 2 separate GUIs... I can understand to have a different shortcut for DCS World War 2 that could fire the same program but with different theme/GUI. We already can switch between UI for each module... granted, is just a background, music and a logo but I'm sure it can be customize even more.

 

Imho this argument also doesn't stand.

 

Maps could not be ported from World to WW2 to Vietnam, "Free content" (like SU25T) can't be ported from one "area to another" being not a module. So the freedom you speak will not actually exist. Mods will tend not to be compatible. Modules by third parties also.

 

This separation will be another DCS then DCS World problem. First it was Ka50 that was suppose to start DCS "world" but when A10C came out the graphic engine was changed a bit (and some more parts... like ME) and it was decided to make another module separated... it was observed that such decision was wrong in the long term and thus "DCS World" finely came to be. DCS World is the old DCS concept but now as a free base game with modules. And much work then was required to move all modules to DCS World... including Flaming Cliffs... basically 3rd time. Alsoi Ka50 was first upgraded to A10C level then merged in DCS World.... work work work...

 

Think in future. What if you want to upgrade other parts of the system? How compatible the upgrade will be with the "two branches" (then three)?

 

Because evolution is implacable... once you separate two groups... they will evolve differently.... no matter what, or it will take great effort to make them stay the same.

 

 

PS And I remeber another thing!! luthier, please remember "the idea" to make "Pacific Fighters" add on to IL-2, which iirc you made it, as a Stand alone game also... the argument was that "USA people doesn't like East European part of the war and they would play only Pacific Fighters... That was sooo sooo wrong again. In the end everybody played the merged variant but many had been confused. Iirc even Hyperlobby had a separate room for PF.

 

My opinion is you are trying to do the same mistake with ED as you did with Maddox just to have a different "arena" for you and is not correct.

 

 

 

 

Sorry to bring this up but it passed a night over here and I lost few pages.

Edited September 2, 2013 by zaelu

[leafer]

@leafer

 

Well, that is a bummer. I'm not buying it then! :D

[3instein]

Good news for the simming community whatever the outcome, IMO.

 

Looking forward to the KS promo, and following the development of this.

No doubt you will have the doubters,even haters, but also the believers.

 

Please O please moderators,don't let this forum even resemble the, dare I say it "Bananna" debacle that was meant to resemble a public forum, stand tough, but I'm sure you knew that already. :smilewink:

 

Anyway, good luck with the project and I wish you all well,

Mick. :pilotfly:

[Silver_Dragon]

Think in future. What if you want to upgrade other parts of the system? How compatible the upgrade will be with the "two branches" (then three)?

 

Because evolution is implacable... once you separate two groups... they will evolve differently.... no matter what, or it will take great effort to make them stay the same.

 

I assume has the same core, only with cosmetic and only changes on units and theaters (ED continue update them (you can plug in all theaters / IA / playable units of one to other)

[zaelu]

I assume has the same core, only with cosmetic and only changes on units and theaters (ED continue update them (you can plug in all theaters / IA / playable units of one to other)

 

 

If they are the same... why double the work? If different... they will get different and different as time passes. Isn't it?

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

im really excited about yesterday's news.

waiting a year will be torture though.

[Suchacz]

Three most important words from the announcement for me:

 

1) Mosquito

2) Flying

3) Fortress

 

:D :thumbup: :joystick: :pilotfly:

[Mogster]

It all sounds rather over ambitious to me. I'd love to see this be achieved in single year. But i won't be holding my breath.

 

+1

[Cedaway]

I really don't see any advantage to have two separate DCS installation and folders, entries,... instead of two separate .exe with common/shared resources.

[Darkwolf]

I do agree

I would prefer everything in a single game - with a "mod selector". That is the system in place with Armed Assault and that works quite well. It still allows to have some fun with stuff from different era in the same game. :thumbup: