DCS WWII: Europe 1944

[ALDEGA]

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.

+1

[Cibit]

Excited:thumbup:

[empeck]

Hopefully both RRG and ED will reconsider this decision, and leave DCS: World and DCS: WW2 as one, merged application. Keeping two identical (on code level) simulations makes no sense and will split the community.

[Cnuke]

A mod with a press of a button in the same DCS world install is my preference.

Once pressed everything switched over to the ww2 settings.

 

If not, everyone is going to migrate objects from different installs to be able to use the different map and it will be a installation mess. Vietnam a third install ?

 

One dsc world installation and a common effort to make it epic. Not a division of creativity.

 

But all love for new content ofcourse :)

[Suchacz]

-1

for the separate instalations :mad:

 

Just imagine the time, when the third (fourth, fifth...?) XYZ Studios will come with their demand for separate install :huh:

[Geronimo989]

Do you guys have the permission to use aircraft models and textures from Cliffs of Dover? That could bring us early WW2 scenarios faster.

[Charly_Owl]

Do you guys have the permission to use aircraft models and textures from Cliffs of Dover? That could bring us early WW2 scenarios faster.

 

I do believe 1C and Ubisoft still have rights over these models... unfortunately.

[Suchacz]

I do believe 1C and Ubisoft still have rights over these models... unfortunately.

Imho they already have something WIP from their previous projects in their drawers :thumbup:

[Boris]

This is incredibly exciting!

 

I am surprised by the scope of this project though. I'm worried they're promising too much, when they don't even have to.

Not one, but several flyable planes for the core software is great and really, really generous... But one would do the job quite nicely, and not a single person would have complained.

 

What does that mean for the modules that go on top, will these also be modules with a handfull of planes in one?

 

My main concern here is that quality may suffer for quantity. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the whole IL-2 series, but the number of planes was just overwhelming, and the modelling for the majority of them must have involved a lot of guesswork.

More isn't necessarily better, especially when it comes to DCS. Five very well and highly accurately modeled warbirds with detailed campaigns and training missions would beat twenty that have been simplified. It also let's you appreciate each plane for what it is that much more.

 

@Luthier, do you think you can maintain a study-sim quality of aircraft in a survey-sim scope?

[Furbs]

EDGE landscape engine? does anyone have any info on this? did a few google searches and couldn't find much.

[Geronimo989]

This is incredibly exciting!

 

I am surprised by the scope of this project though. I'm worried they're promising too much, when they don't even have to.

Not one, but several flyable planes for the core software is great and really, really generous... But one would do the job quite nicely, and not a single person would have complained.

 

What does that mean for the modules that go on top, will these also be modules with a handfull of planes in one?

 

My main concern here is that quality may suffer for quantity. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the whole IL-2 series, but the number of planes was just overwhelming, and the modelling for the majority of them must have involved a lot of guesswork.

More isn't necessarily better, especially when it comes to DCS. Five very well and highly accurately modeled warbirds with detailed campaigns and training missions would beat twenty that have been simplified. It also let's you appreciate each plane for what it is that much more.

 

@Luthier, do you think you can maintain a study-sim quality of aircraft in a survey-sim scope?

 

I think that is the main question. Will all planes be of DCS: Mustang quality?

[iFoxRomeo]

I am both happy and sad about this announcement.

Happy: New Aircraft, new scenery etc...

Sad: Marketing decision vs. user friendly environment.

 

I´d like to quote something from this forum

DCS stands for “Digital Combat Simulator”. DCS is a world simulation engine permitting the user to operate or direct a growing number of combat and civilian aircraft, ground vehicles and ships, from different historical eras, in different geographical locations and at different levels of fidelity. It is a true "sand box" simulation. DCS started with the Ka-50 and A-10C, but has recently grown to also include the P-51D Mustang and, with Combined Arms, a ground command and control tactical warfare component. Future products from The Fighter Collection and Eagle Dynamics in the DCS line are in development and will includes partner products like the UH-1H "Huey", MiG-21bis "Fishbed", T-2 "Buckeye", BAE "Hawk", and Mi-8MT-V2 "Hip".

 

The overall "simulation operating system" is termed DCS World and is a free program that includes a free Su-25T for the player to fly. All DCS products will plug into DCS World as unique modules within the same software installation. DCS products will not be limited to aircraft, but will include maps, missions, campaigns, environment objects, weapons, vehicles and ships. We even hope to look into a train simulation component in the future!

 

Partner products to DCS are supported by ED and there are already several qualified 3rd party teams creating new aircraft that will plug into DCS World. In these cases we leave it up to the developer to decide the level of systems fidelity, but we do expect certain "DCS Standards" to be maintained such as detailed and accurate models and cockpits with 6 DOF view control.

 

We are also developing "DCS Flaming Cliffs" titles as modules for DCS. These aircraft include highly detailed models, 6 DOF capable cockpits, and advanced flight models. However, they have the same level of cockpit functionality as our Lock On series (a less complex and shallower learning curve). Upcoming DCS Flaming Cliffs aircraft modules include the A-10A, Su-25, F-15C, and Su-27.

 

DCS WWII: Europe 1944 is solely a marketing decision as neither the current DCS users need this separation, because they are used to the situation of mixed aircraft from different timeframes, nor is it technically mandatory, as the modules are/will be cross compatible.

It is just to bring the theatre of war into the name of the product and separate the modern era from the historical era. So more potential buyers are adressed.

 

A friend of mine flies IL2 and Rise of Flight. As i told him "Hey, there is a P51 in DCS" he said that he didn´t like flying a WW2 bird in the wrong scenery, so he wouldn´t join the DCS train.

 

I think that many WW2 Bird lovers associate DCS with modern era Jets and "wrong" scenery for WW2 Birds. Which was true till the Mustang arrived. But the Mustang couldn´t change it completely.

I guess that in order to circumnavigate the rejection of the WW2 guys regarding DCS and to attract ->their<- interest in DCS the idea of DCS WWII: Europe 1944 was born.

 

It is absolutely okay to attract more flyers to DCS.

Make the WWII era a module, that is able to run stand alone, but also integrable to DCS World.

The "old and faithful" users will be more happy with just a single installation.

 

 

 

Fox

[Phantom453]

Very excited by the whole project and look forward to offering my support via the kick-starter, once we have the details.

 

I'm really unsure about the separate installations and don't like the sound of it one bit so far from the last 30 odd pages.

 

I really like the one World/ one sandbox approach for all content. I'm not one for playing Final Countdown (a.k.a. F14's shooting down Zeros), however the options should be there in a one stop shop called DCSW. It should also be there for DCS Middle East 48, 56, 73; Korea 50-53, 2016; Vietnam; WW1; Western Desert 40-43 ... whatever.

 

Let the mission/ campaign designers determine what aircraft and content are present. Apply content filters and naming conventions where necessary.

 

Two installs will eventually become three installs ... which will require more work to maintain compatibility, which I doubt will work in the long term.

 

Just my $0.02 worth. All the very best for the project.

[SlipBall]

I'm with you Luthier:thumbup:...aka SlipBall

[Mogster]

The ideal would be being able to receive all DCS content through DCSW, but the ability to only receive WW2 content if you so desired. Receiving WW2 content only can be via a different launcher, if that's RRG's preference.

[Korn]

Well this might be a solution, imo getting the best for the two worlds:

 

Just make an installer for DCS WWII which will install (:P) DCS World plus DCS WWII module and market it a standalone game (which it obviously is). So new buyers will get DCS WWII fully working with the respective interface and so on without having to worry about base game, modules and so on, which i recognize causes problems for a lot of people and will probably lead to lost sales.

 

This installation will be exactly as a separate "classic" installation of DCS Word then the module, the only difference being the ease of use and lack of "fear factor". Of course this means it will install just like any other game so no problem for anybody, new user or not. It also means that the old users can just install the module in their DCS World and get exactly the same content (plus what they already have).

 

To farther simplify things (KISS) i think the modules should be hidden by default in this WWII interface in order to keep confusion for new users at a minimum. To make the module related stuff visibile in the interface just make a tick box somewhere in the advanced options.

 

I think this offers all the advatages of a separate standalone installation (because it is exactly this) with the DCSW integration we'd come to appreciate for what it is, a very good thing.

 

Also, it assures simple already-in-place unified updating mechanism, future compatibility and continuity between modules instead of potentially divergent development and lots of problems.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Korn

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

quite a few familiar faces here lately :)

@furbs look at the development updates...wags posted a few wip screenshots.there are some more on the net and even a short vid on youtube, but all those are old and obsolete i think...

http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=84946&d=1374252408

[Furbs]

Cheers David will have a look...

[Cedaway]

EDGE landscape engine? does anyone have any info on this? did a few google searches and couldn't find much.

 

Look up HERE ;)

[Hans-Joachim Marseille]

I'm afraid I don't understand this thread side-tracking into a discussion about separating worlds or not.

DCS: WWII will have what it looks to be a Normandy-like map ... is that a map "jet jockeys" would be interested in (as the default, only map)?

Having two theaters/maps is being spoiled with choice in my opinion.

And with 3rd party developers like Beczl offering WWII content for DCS: World I don't see the problem, as long as modules/content can be used in either map.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Hans-Joachim Marseille

[Furbs]

Look up HERE ;)

 

 

Cheers, i only signed up yesterday so it may take me a while to find my way around. ;)

[[DBS]TH0R]

Great news indeed, and an excellent theater/year choice IMO. Lets hope they can pull it off. I for one would love to see the flyable B-17 and Tempest. Typhoon wouldn't go a miss either. :)

[empeck]

I'm afraid I don't understand this thread side-tracking into a discussion about separating worlds or not.

DCS: WWII will have what it looks to be a Normandy-like map ... is that a map "jet jockeys" would be interested in (as the default, only map)?

Having two theaters/maps is being spoiled with choice in my opinion.

And with 3rd party developers like Beczl offering WWII content for DCS: World I don't see the problem, as long as modules/content can be used in either map.

 

I don't consider myself as a jet jockey, and I own every DCS module except CA. I'm a flight sim fan, and I enjoy almost every theatre and era available. That's why I'd prefer to have one install.

 

It's not side tracking discussion, because if it's a separate install it may have the impact on my Kickstarter pledge amount.

[sylkhan]

Two worlds???

one step forward, two steps backward :)

[sotosev]

I would like to see all project be in the same world and no separate it! add new map, no problem. Be an imagination map, no problem. Be a map of the past no problem. I don't like the idea of a separate word. I would like to fly A-10C in this word even if it's from the past. And even fight with F-15C with WWII airplane, why not?

 

Just my opinion!