DCS WWII: Europe 1944

[horseback]

Oleg should pop in here and take a few questions :smartass:

God, NO!!! :disgust: I want him as far away as possible from the P-47 or any other project involving US aircraft powered by the R-2800. He might be fine as an adviser or as a prestige association, but I don't want to see a repeat of the Terminator 2000 rear gunners, the late-war US fighters' ridiculous trim demands or the glass-jaw engine DMs.

 

Thanks but no thanks.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[Pilotasso]

F35 was one plane though I assume, this is WW2, with potentially quite a few DCS quality planes over time. Hence, it is fantastic value, and I would be stunned if it doesn't make 100k.

I'm in $125 with Star Citizen, for a ship I could easily get in game. So yes, a lot of it is about supporting the idea.

 

well, but could you get it with lifetime insurance, engine mods and business hangar at the same time? I think not! :D

[ishtmail]

well, but could you get it with lifetime insurance, engine mods and business hangar at the same time? I think not! :D

 

Hm, didn't see that DCS:WW2 would have Persistent Universe going, with permadeath. Still, I can't imagine life without LTI any longer :megalol:

[Weta43]

I don't really understand the business model at this point.

 

It's just bringing revenue forward to get operational funds - yes it's discounting the product to do so, but better a discounted sale now and enough funds to complete the project, than stay firm on the sale price and have the project fold through lack of cash-flow well before delivery...

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

You need to get some of that first days momentum back!

 

It's already looking eerily close to what happened to the F-35A, big contributions on day one and two then a trickle from there on out.

 

where do you get those graphs from?i searched the kickstarter page, but didnt find anything

[Foul Ole Ron]

http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/508681281/dcs-wwii-europe-1944

[Vampyre]

I actually expected a slowdown after the first day due to all of the forum posters jumped in with donations early. Now the trick is to get as many of our fellow simmers onboard as well by spreading the word about the KS. We are already 1/3rd of the way to the goal after just 2 days and the more people who pledge the more likely we will have this project ready for release in a year.

[westr]

I'm prepared to up my pledge later in the month...

[nr1jc]

JUst wondering why they choose to Call it DCS WW2 1944???would`nt it sufice to Call WW2, no lets narrow it Down to almost the end :)

 

or even just leave it under DCS

[NineLine]

JUst wondering why they choose to Call it DCS WW2 1944???would`nt it sufice to Call WW2, no lets narrow it Down to almost the end :)

 

or even just leave it under DCS

 

Its called DCS WWII: Europe 1944

 

So I think anything after the : can be changed for expansions and such ;)

[cichlidfan]

It does appear as if it is themed on the Normandy invasion, which occurred just about in the middle of the year 1944.

[nr1jc]

Ahhh me soooo blind .The need to define every thing is gonna ruin it for me :)

 

When is DCS post WW2:1952 or DCS pre GULF:1981 coming ????

[Weta43]

DCS WWII: Europe 1944

 

DCS.WoWTENFF

 

Just slips off the tongue :)

Edited September 8, 2013 by Weta43

[cichlidfan]

Semi OT here.

 

I just stumbled into this on Amazon. Kindle version is only $4.99. Paperback, $11.66. Haven't read it yet but for only $5, you can't really go wrong.

 

Combat Crew: The Story of 25 Combat Missions Over Europe From the Daily Journal of a B-17 Gunner [Kindle Edition]

John Comer (Author)

[Ramjet]

You need to get some of that first days momentum back!

 

It's already looking eerily close to what happened to the F-35A, big contributions on day one and two then a trickle from there on out.

 

You can look at the graphs for any number of successfully funded kickstarter campaigns, and find a similar trend over the first few days. That it is like a failed campaign is not really indicative of anything, b/c it also resembles a lot of successful campaigns.

 

EDIT: Not to belabor the point, but here are a few randomly chosen graphs from successfully funded campaigns:

Edited September 8, 2013 by Ramjet

[klem]

Semi OT here.

 

I just stumbled into this on Amazon. Kindle version is only $4.99. Paperback, $11.66. Haven't read it yet but for only $5, you can't really go wrong.

 

Combat Crew: The Story of 25 Combat Missions Over Europe From the Daily Journal of a B-17 Gunner [Kindle Edition]

John Comer (Author)

 

Not to drag out the OT but its an excellent book and takes you all the way through the B-17 mission experience.

[Alan Grey]

DCS WWII

 

Luthier: We'll have a cool new video released on Monday morning.

 

This will be crucial for my support. Sorry for my English

Edited September 8, 2013 by Alan Grey

[klem]

Luthier: We'll have a cool new video released on Monday morning.

 

This will be crucial for my support. Sorry for my English

 

http://www.alan-grey-page.cz

 

ermmm....

 

I think you meant this link?

http://www.alan-grey-page.cz/category/dcs-wwii-europe-1944/

 

The other one, and Luthier, is the wrong sim, this thread about the new DCS / Ilya Shevchenko DCS WWII sim.

 

But your support for DCS WWII is most welcome :)

[Royraiden]

ATAG Bliss is giving away a set of Crosswind Rudder Pedals if we get 1000 people to pledge $40 or more.

More info on their website: ATAG Giveaway

[Hans-Joachim Marseille]

I'm prepared to up my pledge later in the month...

Same here ... ready for a surprise final push (if need be).

 

It does appear as if it is themed on the Normandy invasion, which occurred just about in the middle of the year 1944.

A Normandy invasion scenario would seriously slow down framerates on any PC.

There were hardly any Luftwaffe fighters engaging the Normandy landings.

After-Normandy scenarios, like Unternehmen "Drohende Gefahr West", are more feasible.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Hans-Joachim Marseille

[klem]

For the love of my gunnery, a 109G-10 with the MG 151/20 instead of that 109K Mk 108 beast! I would also prefer a Merlin Spit, personally.

 

The proposed Spitfire MkIX is a Merlin SPit. The MkXIV had the Gryphon (and other Mks of course).

[cichlidfan]

A Normandy invasion scenario would seriously slow down framerate on any PC. There were hardly any Luftwaffe fighters engaging the Normandy landings. After-Normandy scenarios, like Unternehmen "Drohende Gefahr West", are more feasible.

 

I never said anything about the sim portraying the invasion at all. I merely brought it up with respect to the us of the year in the name, and the Normandy area being the first map released. This is why I used the word 'themed' in my post. :doh:

[klem]

Luthier can I pick up on a couple of points?

...................................

 

The problem with tree collisions, at least in my past experience, is just in the sheer number of collision objects.

 

There is probably a hundred million trees and bushes across a large gameplay map.

 

That's potentially up to a hundred million collision objects for the engine to track. You obviously need to track the trees any place there are planes at lower altitude. In a multiplayer match, for example, where you can have dozens of people flying all over the map, you may potentially need to track every single tree across the map. An extreme case, but you know what I mean. All these trees also need to be tracked constantly, every tick, multiple times a second.

 

You can't check for collisions between millions of 3D objects 20 times a second.

..............

Not much of a difference between tracking a gazillion boxes, or a single gazillion-polygon object.

 

Why do you want to model individual trees? Why not forest and hedgerow blocks, like single objects? I suppose one answer might be to allow vehicles to travel through forests but are we really interested in that? The Ardennes aside (January 1945) where you could perhaps use trees or clumps of trees, I don't see the need for them in an air combat simulator. Surely the compromise should be in ground vehicle operations rather than flight aspects.

 

.....................................

The way I understand EDGE - and I have to mention that there is a chance that I can be wrong here - is that we can take an existing map and just drag out the outer edges and extend it by any number of kilometers.

 

Creating generic terrain with a vague coastline and some elevation is not a huge task. Making it look good is. Making it historically accurate, i.e. recreating road networks, landmarks, etc, is a huge huge effort.

 

We could take our existing Normandy and tack on England and Paris and Ruhr and Berlin. Theoretically. It's just it'll either take many man-years to polish every square mile, or we'll end up with some empty generic filler across vast areas.

 

As the Normandy area is so small it will really only lend itself to dog-fighting and small scale AI bombing missions. You might increase interest considerably by dragging out the map with low generic detail to include England to the Midlands with generic AI bomber and generic fighter airfields plus a stretch across to Antwerp, Dortmund, south to Strasbourg, West to Rennes and with a few generic targets for the B-17s such as Dortmund, Cologne, Rheims, Trappes (Paris). This would allow longer range missions for bombers at high altitude and the high alt escorts and intercepts that the Mustangs and 109Ks were meant for. In the initial release, who cares about ground detail at 30,000 feet?

[Pips]

Just new here, but oh so excited.

[luthier1]

Luthier, One crucial question, which will decide me backing or not. Do you plan to make a collision model for trees. If not then ppl would use trees in mp to excape level chases. To hide. Its killing fun and is highly unrealistic. And if we turn off trees terrain will look ugly.

 

Let me be perfectly frank here.

 

I just cannot promise it at this time. All I can promise is that we will try.

 

I may have deja vu after my old project, where we've had quite a few instances of saying "we will do this" instead of a more semantically correct "we will try to do this", and where we eventually ended up not being able to deliver what we promised.

 

As it is today, EDGE is still being integrated with the rest of the game. That's precisely what's being done right now, today, having various game objects interact with terrain. Vehicles need to drive, planes need to collide, etc.

 

We're obviously extremely interested in having tree collisions. There's no gameplay or realism reason for why it should not be that way. The only reason why trees would not have collisions is performance.

 

There are obvious algorithms for making this work. There are also less obvious ones. We need to finish the programming, try things out, and make sure everything works well.

 

Need to point out that the people working on this are ED programmers. They're outside my control, and they obviously had absolutely nothing to do with any of my old projects.

 

This is why I personally cannot say with 100% certainty we will have tree collisions. My certainty is, let's say, 93.6%. This may be PTSD talking, but I don't think that's good enough for a promise, especially if your pledge depends on it.

 

As it stands now, there is some confusion.

One part of the description states that at 100k funding goal we get 5 airplanes (P51D and FW190 included), in another part it states that we get 3 airplanes.

 

Five airplanes total, three of them free.

 

I don't really understand the business model at this point.

 

Giving 3 free DCS level planes seems a strange choice, unless the idea is to draw punters away from other products the initial release being really a loss leader. DCS isn't known for anything other than jets, the WW2 hardcore may take some drawing away from the IL2 series. Maybe this is Tishin's play for world flight sim domination.

 

This decision was based on gameplay considerations, not marketing or sales.

 

DCS World is based on decades of content. While there's only one free plane, there's tons and tons of other content that the player encounters, and there's a lot of fun to be had.

 

DCS WWII starts from scratch. We can't do all that much in the next year. If we were to release a free version of the game with a single flyable plane, there'd be significantly fewer options for the player.

 

We want people to enjoy themselves and really have a good, all-around complete product even in the free version.

 

I personally would be very uncomfortable releasing a bare-bones single-flyable free game. We still have to strong paid aircraft in the basic version, and we really hope that the influx will drive enough people to purchase the P-51 and the Dora to keep the series going.

 

1. How will MP work? Coops/servers? how many players in a mission.

 

Same as DCS at least, and we're hoping to improve on it as much as we can.

 

Like I said in the kickstarter description, we really want to spruce up the MP, but we don't know how much we can do and how fast, so perhaps some major features will be added on later.

 

In other words, we have lots of strong opinions and a lot of plans, but it's way too early to talk about them. We'll only know what we can do in the process of doing it.

 

2. How big is the map, ive heard 100/160km but is that just the detailed area with more less detailed map area around that, will there be a English coast?

 

100x160 for the detailed terrain, yes.

 

This is the current size of our WIP map.

 

We can extend it at any time but we have not done so yet.

 

I'm personally scared to include England because it really opens up a whole new set of tasks. I am very uncomfortable doing low-quality terrain, especially with all the great things EDGE can do given enough effort. I think we could be shooting ourselves in the foot by releasing low-quality poorly textured inaccurate England with a few major airbases.

 

In other words, I'm potentially open to the idea, but perhaps it needs a bigger discussion with the community. We might try to add on some England and show how it can be done quickly, just so it's there, and then ask and see if the majority of the players would rather have something like that, or have nothing at all.

 

3. Can Paypal be added to the ways to pledge?

 

Sorry, we can't do anything with the kickstarter system. Whatever it supports, we'll take. Whatever it does not, we can't.

 

You need to get some of that first days momentum back!

http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?

 

It's already looking eerily close to what happened to the F-35A, big contributions on day one and two then a trickle from there on out.

 

We do have a few more things up our sleeve. As a matter of fact, even with the slowed down pace the project is doing better daily than we might have hoped for. It's just that the first few hours were so unbelievably strong, that's making the current pace look bad in comparison.

 

We really do need to pick up the pace and really get the momentum going again if we really want to hit those stretch goals. A flyable B-17 is my personal dream. There's gotta be a way to get there somehow.

 

First off, I am curious if the initially provided planes will be at DCS or FC level ?

I honestly can't see three planes at DCS level given away for free, but I'm asking to make sure.

Please excuse if this has already been explained, but it is impossible to remember every information in this giant thread.

 

Like I said above, this isn't just a kickstarter for the project. The project itself is supposed to kick-start a new WWII flight sim series.

 

We want to start it with a bang. So we really are doing three free DCS-quality planes. Yes.

 

We get the Fw190D-9 as a full price module by ED, matter of fact.

If stretch goals are met, we then get a Fw190A-5 (I expect it to be a full price module too) by RRG.

Here, one could still argue those are fundamentally different planes (radial vs inline).

 

What if then, later on, it gets decided to do a Fw190A-5 1,65 Ata or any other version, whilst we already have the D-9 and A-5 ? !

Is this then expected to sell as another full price module too ?

Same with the various Bf109s and/or Spitfires ?!

 

I really hope that you'd trust the guys who give away three DCS-quality planes in order not to nickel and dime everyone not to nicked and dime everyone on another plane :)

 

We want to have a strong series, and we want to build a good relationship with our players. We are not against giving stuff away for free, as you see.

 

FW-190A and FW-190D are really very different planes. That's why we are putting them as two separate line items; please not that we have not released even a hint of the pricing structure for anything because we ourselves do not have it set at this time.

 

I personally only have a vague idea of some sort of a anthology pack for major aircraft that includes various important variants in a single purchase, with a heavy discount for the owners of the initial single-variant package. But like I said, we are nowhere near far enough in the kickstarter, much less the development process, to really have made any decisions about this.

 

Why do you want to model individual trees? Why not forest and hedgerow blocks, like single objects? I suppose one answer might be to allow vehicles to travel through forests but are we really interested in that? The Ardennes aside (January 1945) where you could perhaps use trees or clumps of trees, I don't see the need for them in an air combat simulator. Surely the compromise should be in ground vehicle operations rather than flight aspects.

 

We'd want to have individual tree collisions because in my experience with my older projects anything less is not precise enough.

 

When your wingtip passes through a tree with no effect, or you fly a foot away from a tree and explode, that's horrible. And that's what happens when your collision is too rough.

 

If we were to go with blocks of trees, that would really change the look of the terrain. We'd need to have all fields, all roads, all parks, everything, to be a multiple of the standard tree line width. You'd see that right away. The terrain would look horribly blocky, almost Minecraft-like.

 

So we really do need to have fine tree collisions for this to work well. They need to match the shape of the tree, otherwise the disconnect is extremely maddening. There's nothing more upsetting than flying in MP, inching closer to the kill at tree-top level, pulling a hard turn around a tree, and exploding even though the tree is over there, just because the collision is a little too coarse.

 

Anyway, back to video editing for tomorrow morning!